UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT  LOS  ANGELES 


^i 


GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 


GOVERNMENT 
FOR  THE  PEOPLE 


BY 

THOMAS  H.  REED 

Associate  Professor  of  Government  in  the 
University  of  California. 


NEW  YORK 

B.  W.  HUEBSCH 

1915 


Copyright,  1915,  by 
B.  W.  HUEBSCH 


Printed  in  U.  S.  A. 


<5K 


PREFACE 

This  book  is  an  effort  to  state  in  a  thoroughly 
clear  way,  for  that  growing  portion  of  the  gen- 
eral public  who  are  interested  in  the  mechanism 
of  goverimient,  some  of  the  obvious  truths  with 
regard  to  it.  It  makes  no  claim  to  erudite 
profundity,  which  is  always  stupid  and  gen- 
erally misleading.  It  is  not  markedly  original. 
Originality  in  the  interpretation  of  the  phenom- 
ena of  government  is  usually  purchased  at  tho 
expense  of  sound  reasoning.  This  book  is 
merely  a  sane  criticism  of  our  institutions.  It 
does  not  murder  truth  in  the  name  of  clever- 
ness. 

The  material  embodied  in  the  succeeding 
chapters  is  the  result  of  a  long  process  of  re- 
flection and  modification.  In  the  fall  of  1910, 
the  writer  delivered,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Extension  Department  of  the  University  of 
California,  a  series  of  lectures  on  contempo- 
rary political  questions.  These  lectures,  fre- 
quently repeated,  were  finally  crystallized  into 
this  book.  During  this  long  period  of  gesta- 
tion, what  were  originally  separate  essays  have 


208150 


vi  PREFACE 

grown  into  a  single  constructive  criticism  of 
our  government. 

The  bibliographies  appended  to  each  chapter 
are  not  intended  to  be  exhaustive,  but  merely 
to  suggest  some  of  the  more  available  works 
and  articles  for  use  by  tliose  who  wish  to  pur- 
sue the  subject  further. 

I  wish  to  make  acknowledgment  of  the  con- 
stant encouragement  which  has  been  afforded 
me  throughout  the  various  stages  of  my  work 
by  Professor  David  P.  Barrows,  Head  of  the 
Political  Science  Department  and  Dean  of  the 
Faculties  of  the  University  of  California.  Al- 
though differing  with  me  materially  in  some  of 
my  conclusions,  he  has  always  urged  me  to  a 
sincere  expression  of  my  own  views.  Mr.  J.  H. 
Quire  has  assisted  me  in  the  correction  of 
proofs,  and  Mr.  J.  E.  Douglas,  Teaching  Fel- 
low in  Political  Science,  has  given  untiring 
service  in  the  preparation  of  the  book  for  the 
press.  My  greatest  helper  has  been  my  wife, 
who  at  every  stage  has  been  ready  with  pointed 
criticism. 

Berkeley,  California, 
January  11,  1915. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 


PAGE 

I    The  Citizen  and  the  State \j 

II  The  Workings  of  Representative  Democracy    .  r6  a 

III    The  Place  of  Political  Parties 2&^ 

rv    Nominations  to  Office 49 

V    Misrepeebentative  Legislatures 69 

VI  The  Long  Ballot  as  a  Cause  of  Political  Cor- 
ruption         ^^ 

VII  The  CoRRxn>TiON  of  Politics  by  Big  Business     .  108 

VIII  The  Corruption  of  Politics  by  Organized  Vice  .  123 

IX  The  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall  .     .     .  137 

X    Our  Judicial  Dilemma 161 

XI  Disorganization  of  State  Administration     .     .  179 

XII    The  Place  of  Experts  in  State  and  Local  Ad- 
ministration     l^"* 

XIII  The  Administration  of  Education 215 

XIV  What  is  the  Matter  with  the  Presidency  ?  .     .  230, 
Appendix       "...  249 


GOVERNMENT  FOR 
THE  PEOPLE 

CHAPTER  I 

THE   CITIZEN   AND   THE   STATE 

Much  learning  and  ingenuity  has  been  applied 
to  defining  the  term  ** state,"  with  the  net  re- 
sult that  we  may  safely  conclude  that  no  in- 
clusive definition  is  possible.  It  means  one 
thing  to  one  set  of  men,  to  another,  another. 
For  our  present  purpose  it  means  simply  so- 
ciety, politically  organized.  It  is  more  fun- 
damental than  government.  Possessing  a  per- 
sonality apart  from  its  machinery  and  agents, 
it  alone  is  permanent  among  changing  forms. 
Give  it  a  *' local  habitation  and  a  name"  and 
we  have  that  *' Country"  for  which  patriots  die. 
t  The  one  great  duty  that  man  owes  to  the 
1  state  is  obedience.  In  the  most  primitive 
forms  of  society  of  which  we  have  record,  long 
before  the  appearance  of  government  in  the 

ordinary  sense  of  that  term,  there  were  certain 

1 


2     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

acts  which  were  generally  recognized  as  in- 
imical to  the  common  good  and  others  as  essen- 
tial to  its  preservation.  The  custom  of  the 
people  forbade  the  one  and  enjoined  the  other. 
To  break  these  simple  folk-ways  meant  exclu- 
sion from  the  tribe,  within  which  there  could 
be  no  place  for  one  who  imperiled  its  safety 
by  disobedience  of  its  collective  judgment.  We 
may  leave  the  origins  of  these  primitive  cus- 
toms for  others  to  conjecture.  It  is  enough 
for  our  purposes  that  they  existed  and  were 
obeyed.  Gradually  it  was  found  desirable  to 
have  some  determination  of  their  scope  and 
some  formal  judgment  when  they  were  broken. 
Gathered  about  the  council  fire  the  clans  lis- 
tened to  the  solemn  pronouncement  of  the 
*4aw-speaker"  and  rendered  their  verdict  of 
guilt  or  innocence.  Later  generations  have 
devised  elaborate  machinery  for  the  authentic 
declaration  of  the  law  and  its  interpretation 
and  enforcement,  but  the  obligation  of  obedi- 
ence has  never  abated.  A  multitude  of  com- 
mands are  issued  instead  of  a  few,  but  to  the 
whole  category,  from  dying  in  battle  to  paying 
one's  taxes,  obedience  is  due. 

Obedience  is  an  especially  imperative  duty 
under  the  circumstances  of  modern  society. 
Such  society,  indeed,  would  be  impossible  with- 
out it.    Man  cannot  live  in  that  proximity  to  man 


THE  CITIZEN  AND  THE  STATE       3 

whicli  the  conditions  of  our  economic  life  have 
ordained,  without  rules,  well  observed.  Just 
as  on  the  cinder-path  we  confine  each  sprinter 
to  a  tape-marked  lane  so  that  none  may  jostle 
another,  so  we  must  have  jostle-bars  in  life. 
They  may  be  defined  by  statutes  enforced  by 
policemen ;  they  may  be  the  result  of  the  simple 
consensus  of  society,  depending  for  their  sanc- 
tion upon  public  opinion  only;  or,  as  is  com- 
monly the  case,  they  may  be  the  product  of 
both  these  methods.  The  process  of  enact- 
ment and  enforcement  has  of  itself  no  signifi- 
cance. It  makes  little  diiference  whether  you 
refrain  from  stealing  from  fear  of  jail,  the 
cold  looks  of  your  neighbors,  or  the  rigors  of 
your  own  conscience.  In  any  event  you  obey 
the  social  will.  Even  our  friends  the  an- 
archists, with  their  enchanting  pictures  of  life 
without  law,  unconsciously  premise  absolute 
obedience  to  the  more  fundamental  customs  of 
society.  Obedience  to  law  in  its  broadest 
sense  is  the  basis  on  which  society  is  built. 
Without  it  the  mutual  confidence  which  makes 
life  among  men  tolerable  could  not  exist.  By 
virtue  of  it  we  lie  down  at  night  confident  in 
the  safety  of  our  lives  and  possessions.  With- 
out it  we  would  go  back  to  naked  savagery  and 
the  continual  task  of  defending  a  luckless  ex- 
istence.   Without  law  there  can  be  no  confi- 


4     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

dence ;  without  confidence,  no  peace  or  security ; 
T7itliout  security,  no  possessions;  without  pos- 
sessions, no  civilization. 

We  must  note  that,  whereas  law  may  be  de- 
fined by  statute,  law  is  not  in  reality  made  by 
statute.  The  vital  principle  of  law  is  the  so- 
cial will,  and  it  is  only  when  the  statute  records 
it  accurately  that  the  statute  is  in  truth  a  law. 
Our  processes  of  law-making  are  at  best  im- 
perfect. Motives  many  and  various  swerve 
legislatures  from  the  strict  performance  of 
their  representative  function.  Deliberate  and 
inadvertent  errors  help  to  crowd  the  statute 
books  with  lawless  enactments.  It  should  ex- 
cite no  remark  that  such  acts  are  disobeyed. 
They  are  our  peculiar  American  disgrace.  We 
frequently  cry  *'Amen!"  to  those  of  our  for- 
eign critics  who  describe  us  as  a  lawless  people. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  we  are  not  lawless;  only 
perverse  and  insincere.  We  permit  our  legis- 
lators to  enact  statutes  which  we  either  do  not 
want  at  all  or  at  least  not  sufficiently  to  trouble 
ourselves  with  their  enforcement.  Through 
positive  dislike  or  i3assive  indifference  we  tol- 
erate their  constant  infraction.  The  worst 
consequence  is  that  the  fact  of  a  difference  be- 
tween the  legal  standard  and  the  real  social 
will  is  a  veritable  Archimedean  fulcrum  of 
graft. 


THE  CITIZEN  AND  THE  STATE       5 

Just  as  in  many  small  matters  our  so-called 
"law-makers"  fall  something  short  of  the 
mark,  so  the  whole  form  of  government  may 
fundamentally  fail  to  express  the  real  social 
will.  Under  normal  conditions  it  is  our  duty  to 
obey  the  behests  of  constituted  authority  even 
when  they  measurably  depart  from  our  stand- 
ard of  right.  It  is  not  reasonable  to  condemn 
a  worthy  institution  because  of  its  incidental 
failures.  There  come  times,  however,  when 
the  will  of  society  and  that  of  its  usual  agent 
come  into  conflict  so  violently  that  the  indi- 
vidual must  choose  between  them.  At  such  a 
time  the  higher  obligation  attaches  to  substance 
rather  than  to  form.  The  eighteenth  century 
political  philosophers  called  this  duty  to 
choose  the  better  part  "the  right  of  revolu- 
tion." We  no  longer  accept  their  "compact" 
theory  of  government  by  which  it  became 
man's  duty  to  resist  the  invasion  of  those  fun- 
damental rights  that  the  original  social  con- 
tract had  reserved  to  him.  We  arrive,  how- 
ever, at  the  same  practical  result  by  holding 
that  the  right  to  command  obedience  inheres 
not  in  any  form  of  government  but  in  the  state 
as  we  have  defined  it.  At  every  such  funda- 
mental crisis  there  is  a  right  and  a  wrong  side, 
and  man  makes  choice  between  them  at  his 
peril.    There  is  a  Thomas  Hutchinson  and  a 


6     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

Samuel  Adams,  a  Jefferson  Davis  and  an 
Abraham  Lincoln  for  every  attempted  revolu- 
tion. In  the  long  run,  government  must  con- 
form to  the  social  will,  itself  a  product  of  the 
economic  conditions  of  the  country.  It  may 
be  accident  or  prescience,  but  some  read  the 
writing  on  the  wall  and  become  heroes.  Others 
fail  to  read  it  and  suffer  the  hard  penalties  of, 
failure. 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  the 
nature  of  the  obligation  due  from  the  state  to 
its  people,  let  us  be  clear  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  obligor.  To  use  the  legal  phrase,  every 
citizen  in  a  democracy  is  severally  liable  upon 
the  obligations  of  the  state.  We  frequently 
speak  of  the  duty  of  the  citizen  to  participate 
with  his  whole  heart  and  mind  in  the  determina- 
tion of  public  questions,  as  a  duty  he  owes  to 
the  state.  It  is  in  fact  a  duty  that  he  owes 
because  he  is  the  state.  It  is  a  duty  owed  not 
to  a  cold  abstraction  but  to  his  fellow-men. 
Too  little  emphasis  is  placed  upon  this  obliga- 
tion side  of  citizenship.  We  hear  a  great  deal 
about  the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  but  it  is 
the  powers  rather  than  the  duties  of  sover- 
eignty that  are  held  prominently  in  mind. 
Every  loud-mouthed  fellow  on  the  hustings 
crowds  upon  his  hearers  the  fact  of  their 
power.    The    completeness    of    their    control 


THE  CITIZEN  AND  THE  STATE       7 

over  government  is  made  an  issue  at  elections. 
There  are  few  to  remind  tliem  that  power  car- 
ries with  it  responsibility,  in  this  case  respon- 
sibility for  the  lives,  health,  morality,  and  hap- 
piness of  a  nation. 

This  failure  of  the  popular  sense  of  respon- 
sibility is  by  no  means  unaccountable.  When 
Louis  XIV  cried  out  ''L'etat,  c'est  moi/'  it  was 
obvious  that  he  assumed  the  obligations  as  well 
as  the  privileges  of  power.  Since  his  time  we 
have  diffused  sovereign  power  among  the  people 
without  the  state  suffering  the  least  diminu- 
tion of  its  authority.  Indeed,  the  state  is 
stronger  now  than  then,  and  the  government 
infinitely  more  secure  on  this  broader  basis 
than  on  the  narrow  support  of  personal  power. 
Power  is  divisible.  Separate  it  into  millions  of 
parts  and  they  readily  combine  to  make  a  whole. 
Its  determinations  thus  reached  are  no  less  au- 
thentic than  when  they  originate  in  the  brain 
and  purpose  of  a  single  man.  Responsibility,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  indivisible.  Half  a  sense  of 
responsibility  is  as  good  as  worthless.  Divide  it 
by  a  million  and  no  reassembling  of  parts  will 
ever  give  the  whole  again.  Man  must  be  wholly 
responsible  or  he  will  not  be  responsible  at  all. 
It  should  be  an  inspiration  to  that  end  that  he 
is  not  responsible  to  a  mere  abstraction,  but  to 
a  living,  moving,  suffering  humanity.    If  this 


8     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

is  an  age  of  philanthropy — and  we  see  evi- 
dences of  a  growing  love  of  man  for  man  on 
every  side — it  would  seem  to  be  easy  to  carry 
the  eagerness  of  that  love  into  political  life. 
It  should  be  the  most  potent  motive  for  intelli- 
gent and  honest  activity  in  performing  the  func- 
tions of  the  state.  When  by  our  vote  a  bad 
mayor  steps  into  office  we  should  be  red  with 
the  shame  of  it.  Of  his  every  act  of  maladmin- 
istration we  should  say,  '*We  did  it  and  we  did 
it  to  our  fellow-men!"  This  is  our  only  hope 
of  good  government. 

Here  we  meet  another  difficulty  that  besets 
the  establishment  of  a  true  sense  of  responsi- 
bility among  individual  members  of  the  body 
politic.  The  evil  results  of  maladministration, 
while  inevitable  enough,  are  by  no  means  ob- 
vious. In  simpler  times  the  consequences  of 
misgovemment  were  open  and  palpable  injus- 
tice, robbery  and  oppression.  In  these  intri- 
cate days,  sins  governmental  are  of  a  more 
mediate  character.  Newly  elected  Mayor 
Smith  appoints  ex-Divekeeper  Jones  as  Chief 
of  Police.  No  one  is  thrown  into  a  bastile,  or 
banished,  or  bastinadoed.  There  is  simply  less 
efficiency  in  the  police  department.  The  city's 
money  is  wasted;  but  that  fact  comes  home  in 
no  perceptible  form  to  the  non-taxpaying  voter, 
and  only  in  a  slight  measure  to  the  taxpayers 


THE  CITIZEN  AND  THE  STATE      9 

themselves.  The  matter  is  passed  by  with  a 
** Jones  is  a  good  fellow,"  It  is  more  than 
likely,  however,  that  waste  in  the  police  de- 
partment has  prevented  the  city  from  under- 
taking some  useful  improvement,  such  as  the 
opening  of  a  playground  in  a  congested  tene- 
ment district.  Scores  of  boys  and  girls  have 
lost  their  chance  for  health,  perhaps  for  life 
itself.  It  is  hard  for  the  voter  to  see  that  he 
has  committed  murder  by  the  simple  act  of  cast- 
ing his  ballot,  but  under  such  circumstances  he 
has.  Legal  and  moral  science  concur  in  fixing 
upon  every  man  the  intention  to  produce  every 
reasonable  consequence  of  his  acts.  The 
criminal  voter  is  the  most  common  type  of 
criminal  we  have. 

The  obligation  which  the  state  owes  to  its 
members  is  justice.  I  do  not  mean  by  justice 
the  thing  administered  by  judge  and  jury. 
Neither  do  I  mean  by  justice  that  narrow  per- 
sonal quality  which  is  listed  in  the  manuals 
of  ethics  with  courage,  temperance,  chastity, 
and  kindred  "virtues."  The  justice  to  which 
I  refer  is  social  justice,  not  differing  in  kind, 
perhaps,  from  the  personal  variety,  but  so  far 
removed  from  it  in  its  actual  manifestations 
as  to  be  scarcely  capable  of  comparison  with 
it.  It  is  this  justice  which  is  **the  great  end 
of  man  on  earth." 


10  GOVEENMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

If  it  be  questioned  that  justice  is  the  sole 
duty  of  the  state  to  its  citizens,  a  momentary 
analysis  of  the  other  "virtues"  will  show  them 
to  be  but  synonyms  of  justice  or  purely  per- 
sonal qualities  impossible  to  a  corporate  body. 
A  state  cannot  be  brave,  except  in  its  rela- 
tion to  other  states,  a  situation  in  which  it  par- 
takes largely  of  the  character  of  a  person.  It 
cannot  be  chaste  or  temperate,  except  in  the 
sense  of  moderation,  which  is  a  phase  of  jus- 
tice. Honesty  and  fairness  are  but  other 
words  for  justice.  The  relations  of  individ- 
uals are  also  affected  by  motives  which  impel 
to  conduct  more  than  just.  "Love"  and 
"charity"  are  familiar  names  for  such  expan- 
sive impulses.  Life  would  lose  its  charm  with- 
out them.  From  the  point  of  view  of  indi- 
vidual ethics  they  are  all  important;  but  with 
the  state  there  is  no  room  for  any  obligation 
beyond  simple  justice.  The  self-abnegation  of 
the  state  would  reduce,  not  increase,  the  sum 
of  human  happiness.  It  would  merely  be  the 
subversion  of  the  interests  of  the  many  to  the 
interests  of  the  few.  The  state  cannot  give 
more  than  justice  to  one  without  giving  less 
than  justice  to  another, — without  robbing 
Peter  to  pay  Paul.  The  best  the  state  can  do 
is  to  give  fair  play  to  all  its  members. 

Justice  is  simply  the  widest  possible  diffu- 


THE  CITIZEN  AND  THE  STATE     11 

sion  among  all  the  members  of  society  of  the 
opportunity  for  self-realization.  As  to  what 
it  is  in  the  concrete,  no  two  generations  give 
the  same  answer.  It  is  a  variable,  constantly 
approaching  infinity.    Nautilus-like 

^^Each  new  chmnber,  loftier  than  the  last, 
Shuts  it  from  heaven  ivith  a  dome  more  vast." 

The  history  of  the  world's  progress  is  found 
in  its  expanding  definition.  The  street  boy  of 
today  knows  more  of  social  justice  than  the 
immortal  Plato.  Was  not  Plato's  ideal  state, 
doubtless  in  perfect  consonance  with  his  idea 
of  justice,  founded  upon  a  system  of  slave  la- 
bor? Plato  saw  with  the  eyes  of  his  time  as 
we  with  the  eyes  of  our  time.  Paul  preached 
a  gospel  which  put  master  and  slave  on  an 
equality  before  God,  but  he  taught  in  the  same 
breath  the  duty  of  slaves  to  submit  to  their 
masters.  Ascending  the  years  to  the  full  ma- 
turity of  the  feudal  system,  we  find  the  laborer 
no  longer  the  personal  property  of  the  master. 
We  find  him,  indeed,  possessing  certain  rights 
which  the  master  must  respect;  but  he  is  at- 
tached to  the  soil,  with  no  liberty  to  come  or 
go,  and  burdened  with  heavy  services.  In 
1789  we  find  the  French  Eevolution  enacting  a 
new  ideal  of  justice  in  the  abolition  of  the  old 
restraints  and  privileges.    We  find  the  Eng- 


12  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

lisH  economists  of  the  first  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  preaching  laissez  faire  as  the 
only  rule  of  fairness  and  justice.  Today  we 
know  that  to  leave  men  to  work  out  their 
economic  salvation  unhampered  by  legal  re- 
strictions is  simply  to  enact  the  dominance  of 
the  strong  and  the  subjection  of  the  weak.  In 
a  state  of  freedom  the  race  is  to  the  swift  and 
the  battle  to  the  strong:  witness  the  acquisition 
of  the  resources  and  opportunities  of  our  coun- 
try today  by  a  few  great  interests.  In  the  in- 
active state  the  extremes  of  society  grow 
steadily  apart,  the  fortune  of  the  parent  de- 
termining the  future  of  the  child.  The  great 
mass  of  those  born  down  stay  down  or  sink 
lower.  If  there  is  to  be  genuine  equal  oppor- 
tunity for  all  it  must  be  secured  through  state 
action  limiting  the  strong,  and  protecting  the 
weak.  Justice  means,  then,  the  curbing  of  cor- 
porate power,  the  regulation  of  monopolies,  the 
prescription  of  the  terms  and  conditions  of  em- 
ployment. It  means  pure  food  laws,  enforced. 
It  means  schools,  libraries,  playgrounds, 
nurseries,  parks,  lectures,  and  a  wide  variety 
of  social  enterprises.  It  is  significant  that  the 
"Money  Power"  which  followed  Hamilton 
against  Jefferson,  demanding  a  wide  exercise 
of  governmental  authority,  have  learned  the 
value  to  themselves  of  freedom  from  govern- 


THE  CITIZEN  AND  THE  STATE     13 

mental  control,  and  are  advocating  a  strict  con- 
struction of  the  Constitution.  It  was  the  pro- 
letariat who  followed  Mr.  Roosevelt  into  a 
**new  nationalism,"  and  beyond. 

The  phases  of  justice  are  as  varied  as  those 
of  human  life.  To  generalize,  justice  is  the 
current  ideal  of  social  and  economic  fair  play. 
Popularly  it  is  the  ** Square  Deal."  It  does 
not  imply  equality  of  possessions  or  of  stand- 
ing in  the  community.  Equality  in  this  sense 
would  be  injustice,  unless  we  are  to  deny  re- 
ward to  virtue  and  talent.  Neither  is  justice 
synonymous  with  socialism,  although  many  of 
its  manifestations  are  socialistic.  It  goes  to 
the  point  of  an  opportunity  for  all  men  to  be, 
and  do,  and  get  the  best.    That  is  all. 

In  conclusion,  one  further  fact  must  be  em- 
phasized. Justice  is  impossible  of  achieve- 
ment today  except  through  the  state.  In  some 
way  the  social  will  must  be  forcibly  exerted  to 
settle  our  vexing  problems.  Modern  indus- 
trial development  has  forever  destroyed  com- 
petition as  a  method  of  controlling  prices. 
The  consuming  public  is  helpless  in  this  re- 
gard except  as  it  is  capable  of  definite  political 
action.  Protection  against  infected  milk,  im- 
pure water,  embalmed  beef,  and  sweatshop 
clothing  is  far  beyond  the  power  of  the  in- 
dividual.   He   lives   in   an   ignorance,   by  no 


14  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

means  blissful,  of  tlie  origin  of  his  dinner,  his 
coat,  and  his  cigar.  We  could  in  a  simpler 
state  of  civilization  raise  our  own  food,  make 
our  own  candles,  own  our  own  horse,  and  de- 
pend upon  our  own  exertions  for  the  abun- 
dance and  purity  of  the  supply  of  everything 
in  common  use.  We  have  lost  control  over  the 
quality  and  price  of  almost  every  enjoyable 
commodity  and  service.  Our  only  help  is  in 
the  state,  whose  activity  is  ubiquitous  and 
whose  arm  is  strong  with  the  strength  of  the 
millions. 

The  state  has  a  wonderful  new  work  to  do, 
far  beyond  us  as  individuals.  Some  fear  its 
increased  social  activity  and  presage  the  de- 
preciation of  individual  development.  It  mil 
not  check  but  foster  individuality.  Wider  op- 
portunities for  self-development  are  inherent 
in  social  fair-play.  Right  living  conditions, 
otherwise  impossible,  will  make  men  stronger, 
wiser,  more  aspiring  than  ever.  If  the  com- 
pletest  self-realization  be  the  goal  of  ethical 
conduct,  the  way  to  that  goal  for  the  mass  of 
men  is  through  justice.  The  enactment  of  jus- 
tice, as  the  light  of  the  dawning  twentieth  cen- 
tury gives  us  to  see  it,  is  the  duty  of  each  of  us 
as  fully  responsible  participants  in  the  power 
of  the  state. 


THE  CITIZEN  AND  THE  STATE     15 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bryce,  James,  "The  Hindrances  to  Good  Citizenship." 

Cunningham,  W.,  "Outlines  of  English  Industrial 
History,"  pp.  89-109.  (A  brief  account  of  in- 
dustrial conditions  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries.) 

Dunning,  W.  A.,  "Political  Theories  Ancient  and 
Mediaeval";  "Political  Theories  from  Luther  to 
Montesquieu. ' ' 

Fowler,  William  "Warde,  "The  City  State  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans." 

Gaullieb,  Henry,  "The  Paternal  State  in  France 
and  Germany." 

Godkin,  E.  L.,  "The  Duty  of  Educated  Men  in  a  "^ 
mocracy,"  in  "Problems  of  Modern  Democracy 
also  Forum,  March,  1894. 

Jenks,  Edward,  "The  History  of  Politics." 

Leroy-Beaulieu,  p.,  "The  Modem  State." 

Pollock,  Sir  Frederick,  "History  of  the  Science  of 
Politics." 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  "A  Charter  of  Democracy." 
Outlook,  February  24,  1912.  (See  also  numerous 
other  articles  in  same  magazine  during  1912.) 

RooT;  Elihu,  "The  Citizen's  Part  in  Government." 


CHAPTER  n 

THE   WORKINGS   OF   REPRESENTATIVE   DEMOCRACY 

Representative  democracy  is  a  recent  innova- 
tion, a  scarcely  tried  experiment.  The  so- 
called  democracies  of  ancient  times  were 
neither  representative  nor  democratic;  the 
right  to  participate  in  the  government  was  lim- 
ited to  much  less  than  the  whole  adult  male  pop- 
ulation, while  the  device  of  representation  does 
not  appear  to  have  occurred  to  the  ancients. 
Representative  government  grew  up  naturally, 
out  of  the  conditions  of  mediaeval  Europe;  but 
not  until  well  into  the  nineteenth  century  did 
it  take  on  a  democratic  form.  In  Great  Brit- 
ain, which  possessed  the  oldest  and  most  fa- 
mous representative  assembly,  the  suffrage  was 
not  at  all  widely  extended  until  1867,  and  it  was 
not  put  upon  a  genuinely  democratic  footing 
until  1885.  France,  save  for  brief  periods, 
never  enjoyed  a  government  based  on  the  votes 
of  all  the  people  until  1871.  The  constitution 
of  the  North  German  Confederation  first  intro- 
duced genuine  universal  suffrage  into  Ger- 
many.   In  our  own  country,  severe  restrictions 

16 


WORKINGS  OF  DEMOCRACY        17 

on  the  right  to  vote  pi-evailed  in  most  of  our 
States  down  to  1830,  and  it  was  not  until  about 
1850  that  universal  wliite  male  suffrage  came 
to  be  the  inile  in  the  United  States.  The  moun- 
tain cantons  of  Switzerland  are  the  only  exist- 
ing political  organizations  which  have  enjoyed 
democratic  institutions  for  any  long  period  of 
time ;  and  their  type  of  democracy  is  direct,  not 
representative. 

There  is  no  exaggeration,  then,  in  saying  that 
our  popular  representative  government  is  prac- 
tically an  untried  experiment.  This  is  a  fact, 
however,  which  the  American  people  are  very 
prone  to  neglect.  That  pseudo-patriotism 
which  finds  its  expression  in  the  spread-eagle- 
ism of  the  Fourth  of  July  oration  takes  it  for 
granted  that  our  form  of  government  is  per- 
fect. As  a  matter  of  fact,  our  kind  of  govern- 
ment has  existed  for  too  short  a  period  to  have 
proved  itself  beyond  question.  Many  men  of 
learning  and  wisdom  have  decried  democracy, 
and  they  have  been  able  to  support  their  argu- 
ments with  abundant  references  to  our  own 
unfortunate  political  experience.  We  have  had 
too  many  Platts,  Quays,  Ruefs  and  Lorimers; 
too  many  machines,  gangs  and  bosses ;  too  much 
waste  and  too  much  corruption  in  government 
to  be  brash  in  our  assertions  of  the  great  su- 
periority of  our  institutions.    If  American  de- 


18  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

mocracy  is  to  stand,  it  must  be  by  tlie  applica- 
tion of  a  constructive  criticism  wliicli  will  lay 
bare  abuses  that  pervert  its  activity.  This  is 
not  at  all  inconsistent  with  a  finn  belief  in  its 
vitality  and  permanence.  Indeed,  it  must  be 
said  that  at  no  other  time  or  place  in  the  history 
of  the  world  has  there  been  so  profound  an  oc- 
casion for  hope  of  the  solution  of  the  problems 
of  a  government  in  the  interest  of  all  as  in  the 
United  States  today. 

It  is  remarkable  how  little  we  who  are  actu- 
ally participating  in  the  conduct  of  a  democratic 
government  know  of  the  workings  of  democ- 
racy. Practically  the  only  light  that  has  been 
thrown  upon  this  subject  has  been  by  one  of  the 
most  severe  critics  of  all  popular  government 
— Sir  Heniy  Sumner  Maine.  In  his  essay  on 
the  "Nature  of  Democracy,"  he  says:  ** De- 
mocracy is  a  form  of  government,  and  in  all 
governments  acts  of  state  are  determined  by 
an  exertion  of  will.  But  in  what  sense  can  a 
multitude  exercise  volition?  The  student  of 
politics  can  put  to  himself  no  more  pertinent 
question  than  this.  No  doubt,  the  vulgar  opin- 
ion is  that  the  multitude  makes  up  its  mind  as 
the  individual  makes  up  his  mind;  that  the 
Demos  determines  like  the  Monarch.  A  host 
of  popular  phrases  testify  to  this  belief.  'The 
will  of  the  people,'  'public  opinion,'  'the  sov- 


WORKINGS  OF  DEMOCRACY        19 

ereign  pleasure  of  the  nation,'  *vox  populi, 
vox  Dei/  belong  to  this  class,  which  indeed 
constitutes  a  great  part  of  the  common  stock  of 
the  platform  and  the  press.  But  what  do  such 
expressions  mean?  They  must  mean  that  a 
great  number  of  people,  on  a  great  number  of 
questions,  can  come  to  an  identical  conclusion 
and  found  an  identical  determination  upon  it. 
But  this  is  manifestly  only  on  the  simplest  ques- 
tions. On  the  complex  questions  of  politics, 
which  are  calculated  in  themselves  to  task  to 
the  utmost  all  the  powers  of  the  strongest 
minds,  but  are  in  fact  vaguely  conceived, 
vaguely  stated,  dealt  with,  for  the  most  part, 
in  the  most  haphazard  manner  by  the  most  ex- 
perienced statesmen,  the  common  determination 
of  the  multitude  is  a  chimerical  assumption. 
The  truth  is,  that  the  modem  enthusiasts  for 
democracy  make  one  fundamental  confusion. 
They  mix  up  the  theoiy,  that  the  Demos  is 
capable  of  volition,  with  the  fact,  that  it  is  capa- 
ble of  adopting  the  opinion  of  one  man  or  of  a 
limited  number  of  men,  and  of  founding  direc- 
tions to  its  instruments  upon  them." 

The  reader  may  test  for  himself  the  validity 
of  Maine's  theory.  Even  small  committees  of 
four  or  five  people  are  utterly  unable  spon- 
taneously to  reach  a  conclusion.  One  man 
makes  a  proposition,  another  criticises  it,  an- 


20  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

other  suggests  amendments  or  proposes  an  al- 
ternative, and  in  the  end  the  will  of  the  commit- 
tee has  simply  been  adopted  from  the  sugges- 
tions of  the  individuals  who  make  it  up.  Of 
course,  this  process  somewhat  approximates  the 
mental  deliberations  of  the  individual,  but  when 
we  are  dealing  with  large  groups  of  men  even 
this  approximation  disappears.  The  larger  the 
group,  the  less  opportunity  there  is  for  discus- 
sion and  amendment,  and  the  more  nearly  the 
group  is  reduced  simply  to  adopting  or  reject- 
ing the  proposals  put  before  it.  This  principle 
we  shall  find  of  great  value  in  estimating  the 
work  of  legislatures  and  the  possible  results  of 
the  initiative  and  referendum.  It  is  of  vital 
importance,  also,  in  settling  the  place  in  our  in- 
stitutions to  be  occupied  by  political  parties. 
It  is  true  that  the  pressure  of  like  forces  upon 
men  in  similar  environments  frequently  brings 
it  to  pass  that  many  persons  spontaneously  and 
without  any  collusion  come  to  possess  similar 
ideas.  The  great  uprising  of  the  German  peo- 
ple against  Napoleon  is  a  sufficient  historical 
example  of  this  fact.  It  does  not,  however,  de- 
tract from  the  validity  of  the  original  principle 
that  a  democracy  is  capable  only  of  adopting 
the  opinions  of  individuals  or  limited  bodies 
of  individuals.  It  simply  means  that  the  great 
mass  of  the  people  receives  suggestions  in  such 


WORKINGS  OF  DEMOCRACY        21 

critical  times  from  a  relatively  larger  number 
of  sources.  It  means  many  leaders  rather  than 
few. 

In  modern  times  there  is  no  lack  of  agencies 
for  producing  that  limited  volition  of  which  the 
Demos  is  capable.  Many  of  the  criticisms 
which  have  been  leveled  at  democracy  have 
been  really  due  to  the  imperfections  of  what 
Mr.  Bryce  calls  the  ^* organs  of  public  opinion." 
The  daily  newspapers,  which  are  more  numer- 
ous and  more  efficient  as  distributors  of  news 
in  the  United  States  than  anywhere  else  in  the 
world,  have,  through  very  natural  processes, 
come  to  be  dominated  by  what  may  be  called 
their  business  side.  Not  only  do  the  owners 
of  the  newspapers  dictate  the  editorial  policy  of 
their  papers,  a  thing  which  is  of  course  unavoid- 
able and  not  at  all  improper  in  itself,  but  they 
very  frequently  permit  their  large  advertisers 
to  exercise,  in  particular  instances,  this  power 
for  them.  If  the  matter  stopped  with  the  ex- 
pressions of  the  editorial  page,  which  every  one 
knows  to  be  of  an  ex  parte  character,  the  evil 
would  not  be  great.  There  is,  however,  a  rap- 
idly increasing  tendency  to  color  the  news;  to 
ignore  or  pervert  news  favorable  to  their  op- 
ponents, and  to  magnify  that  favorable  to  the 
cause  for  which  they  stand.  Newspapers  all 
over  the  country,  of  every  shade  of  political  be- 


22  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

lief,  are  guilty  of  tliis  practice.  Of  course, 
there  are  limits  to  which  it  can  not  go.  There 
is  a  point  where  the  news  instinct  of  the  paper 
triumphs  over  the  political  views  or  greed  of 
its  proprieto>rs.  A  paper  cannot  utterly  cease 
to  be  a  "news"  paper  and  continu-e  in  business. 
Short  of  this  limit,  however,  they  have  a  con- 
siderable latitude  for  massacring  truth.  An- 
other point  worthy  of  our  consideration  is,  that 
most  of  the  great  newspapers  are  owned  by  men 
in  close  alliance  with  the  great  corporate  inter- 
ests of  the  country,  and  that,  on  the  whole,  they 
present  to  the  people  a  one-sided  picture  of  po- 
litical conditions.  There  is  danger  that  the 
newspapers  will  become  the  instrument  of  a  sin- 
gle class. 

It  is  obvious  that  although  the  newspapers 
are  the  most  natural  organs  for  the  creation  of 
public  opinion,  they  have  lost  a  considerable 
degree  of  influence  which  they  once  possessed. 
Men  and  causes,  unable  to  get  a  fair  hearing 
through  the  newspapers,  have  had  to  resort  to 
other  means  of  reaching  the  people.  This  has 
resulted  in  the  recent  revival  of  the  platform  as 
a  means  of  public  discussion.  There  was  a 
time  only  a  few  years  ago  when  it  was  very 
common  for  dealers  in  trite  phrases  to  remark 
upon  the  decline  of  oratory  in  America.  We 
are  now  living  in  an  age  of  oratory — not,  per- 


WORKINGS  OF  DEMOCRACY        23 

haps,  of  the  old  flamboyant  variety,  but  even 
more  effective  in  influencing  the  judgment  and 
conduct  of  men.  From  the  Socialist  on  his  soap 
box,  or  the  militant  suffragette  on  her  corner 
barrel,  to  the  wonderfully  effective  campaigns 
of  such  great  national  figures  as  Bryan,  Roose- 
velt and  Johnson,  there  is  more  public  speak- 
ing today  than  ever  in  the  history  of  our  coun- 
try. The  history  of  Governor  Johnson's  cam- 
paign in  California  in  the  Fall  of  1910  is  a  case 
in  point.  He  started  out  in  the  late  summer 
of  that  year,  without  the  aid  of  the  newspapers, 
with  practically  no  organization  behind  him. 
He  traveled  the  State  in  his  own  automobile, 
speaking  everywhere — and  the  results  of  the 
election  proved  conclusively  that  he  had  come 
nearer  to  the  people  than  his  opponents  who  had 
abundant  newspaper  support. 

Another  result  of  the  failure  of  the  newspa- 
pers to  open  their  news  columns  fairly  to  all 
sides,  has  been  the  power  and  influence  of  the 
great  weekly  and  monthly  periodicals.  The  il- 
lusion which  used  to  glorify  for  the  average 
American  whatever  he  read  in  his  daily  paper 
still  clings  in  considerable  degree  to  the  maga- 
zine ;  and  it  is  not  over-praise  to  say  that  they 
have  been  truer  to  their  trust  and  have  done 
more  to  preserve  the  faith  of  the  people  than 
have  their  daily  rivals.    Pamphlet  literature, 


24  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

so  effective  a  hundred  years  ago,  Las  become 
almost  useless  as  a  means  of  creating  opinion. 
Books  are  just  coming  into  their  own.  It  is 
said  that  in  England, — and  it  is  certainly  com- 
ing more  and  more  to  be  true  in  the  United 
States, — the  most  popular  types  of  literature 
are  those  which  deal  with  social  and  political 
questions  in  a  serious  way.  It  may  be  that  the 
tremendous  problems  which  we  now  face  are 
reflected  in  the  seriousness  with  which  the  peo- 
ple are  approaching  them.  The  day  of  the 
book,  at  once  accurate  and  popular,  is  dawning. 
The  character  of  the  public  will  thus  created, 
and,  as  we  shall  see,  focused  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  political  parties,  has  seldom  been 
deliberately  evil.  With  the  exception  of  a  few 
repudiations  of  state  and  municipal  indebted- 
ness, a  few  scattering  acts  which  may  be  inter- 
preted as  confiscatory,  and  an  occasional  ex- 
pression of  class  or  race  bitterness  and  preju- 
dice, there  has  been  nothing  to  mar  the  honor 
of  our  American  democracy.  Indeed,  it  is  posi- 
tively unthinkable  that  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  should  deliberately  and  intentionally  do 
wrong.  In  this  respect  the  Demos  is  the  su- 
perior of  the  individuals  who  make  it  up,  and 
public  opinion  is  more  moral  than  private  opin- 
ion. It  is  useless  to  deny  that  democracy  has 
done  many  wrong  and  harmful  things,  but  they 


WOEKINGS  OF  DEMOCRACY        25 

have  been  tlie  product  of  mistake  and  not  of 
malevolence.  Upon  tliis  proneness  of  democ- 
racy to  error,  many  writers  and  speakers  of  the 
conservative  type  have  was-ted  a  great  deal  of 
eloquence.  I  think  it  can  be  safely  admitted 
by  the  firm  believer  in  popular  government  that 
the  people,  as  a  whole,  are  more  liable  to  errors 
of  judgment  than  a  limited  class  of  the  well 
born  and  well  educated.  The  more  inclusive 
our  ruling  class,  the  less  efficiently  critical  it 
becomes.  On  the  other  hand,  the  narrower  we 
make  our  ruling  class,  the  less  honest  it  be- 
comes. No  oligarchy  or  aristocracy  ever  gov- 
erned for  a  long  period  in  the  interest  of  all  the 
people.  It  is  so  fatally  easy  for  those  in  power 
to  assume  that  their  interests  are  the  interests 
of  all;  it  is  so  difficult  not  to  see  things  from 
the  point  of  view  of  one's  own  pocket  or  preju- 
dice, that  the  limited  ruling  class  is  almost  sure, 
without  any  necessarily  evil  intent,  to  sub- 
ordinate the  welfare  of  the  rest  of  society  to  its 
own.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  careless 
phrase  which  we  have  heard  so  often  repeated 
— "mob  rule" — ought  to  have  no  terrors  for  the 
American  citizen.  The  people  are,  in  a  cer- 
tain aspect,  a  mob,  capable  of  being  vio- 
lently misled  and  of  making  hideous  mistakes ; 
but  in  the  long  run,  over  any  considerable  period 
of  time,  their  judgment  will  point  the  way  more 


26  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

surely  to  the  common  good  than  that  of  any 
class  among  them.  If  we  hold,  as  we  must,  that 
government  exists  for  the  benefit  of  the  gov- 
erned, and  that  its  end  is  to  produce  the  maxi- 
mum benefit  for  all,  we  can  hardly  deny  the  su- 
periority of  democracy  to  other  forms  of  gov- 
ernment. There  is  no  escape  from  democracy 
and  its  evils,  except  into  dangers  much  more 
terrifying. 

Now,  the  Demos  in  the  United  States  has 
ruled,  not  deliberately  badly,  but,  in  many  in- 
stances, with  bad  results.  Serious  charges  are 
brought  against  it.  The  causes  of  its  wrong 
doing  may  be  reduced  to  two: 

(1)  Indifference,  a  state  of  mind  largely  due 
to  that  lack  of  a  sense  of  responsibility  to  which 
we  have  referred  in  the  last  chapter.  There  is 
no  cure  for  this  indifference  except  an  appeal 
to  the  moral  consciousness  of  the  individual 
citizen.  Such  appeals  are  frequently  voiced  to- 
day, and  they  are  having  their  effect.  People 
are  becoming  less  careless ;  more  and  more  in- 
tensely interested  in  the  vital  problems  of  gov- 
ernment. 

(2)  The  failure  of  our  governmental  ma- 
chinery to  establish  the  responsibility  of  its 
several  agents.  In  other  words,  our  system  of 
government  is  such  an  intricate  thing  that  the 
popular  mind  cannot  follow  its  processes  and  fix 


WORKINGS  OF  DEMOCRACY        27 

blame  and  praise  where  they  belong.  These 
defects  we  shall  examine  carefully  in  the  suc- 
ceeding chapters. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Eliot,  C.  W.,  "American  Contributions  to  Civiliza- 
tion," pp.  39-67. 

Fisher,  H.  A.  L.,  "The  Republican  Tradition  in 
Europe. ' ' 

GiDDiNGS,  F.  H.,  "Democracy  and  Empire,"  pp.  29-65. 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  "Democracy  and  Liberty." 

Lowell,  A.  Lawrence,  "The  Government  of  Eng- 
land," vol.  2,  pp.  505-514. 

Maine,  Sir  Henry  Sumner,  "Popular  Government." 

Parsons,  Frank,  "Legal  Doctrine  and  Social  Prog- 
ress. ' ' 

Seeley,  J.  R.,  "Introduction  to  Political  Science." 


M.  D.  (HARV'D) 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   PLACE    OF   POLITICAL,   PARTIES 

Many  very  intelligent  persons  profess  to  see  in 
political  partisansliiiD  a  fruitful  cause  of  the 
failures  of  representative  government.  ''Parti- 
sanship" is  for  them  the  direct  antithesis  of 
"Patriotism,"  and  they  have  ready  to  hand  all 
too  numerous  instances  in  which  so-called  rep- 
resentatives of  the  people  have  employed  their 
jDower  to  the  aggrandizement  of  their  party 
rather  than  for  the  service  of  the  state.  They 
can  draw  an  indictment  against  party  govern- 
ment on  so  many  counts  as  almost  to  convict  it 
without  trial.  On  the  other  hand  we  find  many 
persons  who  affirm  the  necessity  of  iDarties  and 
who,  while  minimizing  the  evils  of  partisanship, 
are  loud  in  their  assertions  of  the  service  which 
a  party  renders  in  the  process  of  government. 
Every  new  voter  is  faced  by  the  problem  of 
party  allegiance.  So  is  every  old  voter  who 
thinks.  It  is,  therefore,  extremely  pertinent  to 
inquire  into  the  relation  which  the  citizen  should 
sustain  toward  parties. 
Until  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 

28 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES     29 

parties  were  generally  regarded  with  abhor- 
rence by  patriotic  men.  Washington  in  his 
*' Farewell  Address,"  warned  his  countrymen 
in  the  most  solemn  manner  against  the  baneful 
effects  of  the  spirit  of  party.  "This  spirit,  un- 
fortunately, is  inseparable  from  our  nature, 
having  its  roots  in  the  strongest  passions  of  the 
human  mind.  It  exists  under  different  shapes 
in  all  governments,  more  or  less  stifled,  con- 
trolled, or  repressed;  but  in  those  of  the  pop- 
ular form  it  is  seen  in  its  greatest  rankness  and 
is  truly  their  worst  enemy.  The  alternate  dom- 
ination of  one  faction  over  another,  sharpened 
by  the  spirit  of  revenge  natural  to  party  dis- 
sensions, which  in  different  ages  and  countries 
has  perpetrated  the  most  horrid  enormities,  is 
itself  a  frightful  despotism.  But  this  leads  at 
length  to  more  frightful  and  permanent  despot- 
ism. The  disorders  and  miseries  which  result 
gradually  incline  the  minds  of  men  to  seek  se- 
curity and  repose  in  the  absolute  power  of  an 
individual ;  and  sooner  or  later  the  chief  of  some 
prevailing  faction — more  able  or  more  fortunate 
than  his  competitors — turns  this  despotism  to 
the  purpose  of  his  own  elevation,  on  the  ruins 
of  public  liberty."  Bolingbroke,  in  his  "Pa- 
triot King,"  described  the  ideal  monarch  who 
should  break  down  party  domination  and  com- 
mand for  the  state  the  services  of  all  its  best 


30  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

men.  It  was  on  the  theory  of  this  book  that 
poor  George  the  Third  tried  to  conduct  the  af- 
fairs of  his  kingdom.  Even  so  great  a  states- 
man as  Chatham  held  that  this  country  ought 
not  to  be  governed  by  any  party  or  faction,  and 
that  if  it  were  so  governed  the  Constitution 
must  necessarily  expire.  Burke  was  the  only 
great  writer  of  the  age  to  defend  parties.  His 
definition  of  a  party  deserves  attention  and  we 
may  well  adopt  it  as  expressive  of  what  a  party 
ought  to  be.  A  party,  he  said,  *4s  a  body  of 
men  united  for  promoting  by  their  joint  en- 
deavors the  national  interest  upon  some  partic- 
ular principle  on  which  they  are  all  agreed." 

The  fact  is  that  there  was  much  more  in  the 
previous  history  of  parties  to  justify  the  opin- 
ion of  Washington  and  Chatham  than  that  of 
Burke.  He  was,  at  least  in  this  instance,  a  po- 
litical prophet.  It  may  not  be  certain  that 
there  have  always  been  parties,  but  it  is  highly 
probable  that  they  have  existed  from  the  time 
when  man  first  began  to  have  community  life. 
The  most  primitive  band  of  savages  naturally 
falls  into  parties  as  it  debates  the  fate  of  cap- 
tives and  the  disposition  of  the  spoils  of  war. 
From  that  time  on  wherever  there  has  been 
difference  of  opinion  on  a  public  matter  there 
has  been  a  division  into  parties.  Until  quite 
recently,  however,  such  bodies  of  men  as  Burke 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES     31 

describes  had  no  means  at  once  peaceful  and 
honest  by  which  they  could  bring  the  particular 
principle  on  which  they  were  all  agreed  into 
effect.  The  Yorkists  and  Lancastrians  of  the 
War  of  the  Roses  were  simply  rival  parties  con- 
tending for  the  control  of  the  state  in  the  only 
way  open  to  them  under  the  circumstances  of 
the  time.  Cromwell  was  a  partisan  leader  who 
brought  his  party  to  victory  by  his  skill  on  the 
battle  field.  Even  where,  as  in  the  Greek  and 
Roman  Republics,  the  forms  of  democracy  were 
more  or  less  observed,  the  idea  of  a  distinct 
change  of  rulers  and  policies  without  banish- 
ments, confiscations  and  executions  was  almost 
unknown.  The  Italian  City  States  of  the  Mid- 
dle Ages  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  South 
American  Republics  of  today  fall  into  the  same 
class.  In  all  of  them  the  electorate  was  very 
narrow  or,  if  broad,  very  ignorant.  If  narrow, 
as  in  the  Greek  Republics  and  the  Italian  cities, 
there  was  always  the  populace  to  which  the  de- 
feated candidate  might  appeal  to  correct  by 
force  the  decision  of  the  ballot.  If  broad  and 
ignorant,  and  the  real  ruling  class  differed 
among  themselves,  the  contests  of  the  rival  fac- 
tions were  conducted  by  buying  votes  or  enlist- 
ing men  to  fight. 

It  is  only  since  the  first  quarter  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  that  the  extension  of  the  suf- 


32  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

frage  and  the  improved  intelligence  of  the  peo- 
ple have  combined  to  secure  in  the  English- 
speaking  countries  and,  to  a  less  extent  in  the 
other  civilized  quarters  of  the  world,  the  possi- 
bility of  an  orderly  change  in  leaders,  policies 
and  even  forms  of  government.  Such  striking 
changes  as  have  been  introduced  in  many  of 
our  State  constitutions  by  the  adoption  of  the 
initiative,  referendum  and  recall;  and  such  al- 
teration in  the  power  of  an  historic  branch  of 
the  government  as  has  been  made  in  England 
through  the  abolition  of  the  veto  power  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  are  now  made  with  no  greater 
disturbance  than  the  discharge  of  unlimited  elo- 
quence. Rivers  of  blood  would  have  flowed  at 
the  mere  suggestion  of  such  fundamental  alter- 
ations in  the  form  of  any  government  two 
hundred  years  ago.  The  case  against  parties 
was  very  much  stronger  when  Washington 
wrote  his  '* Farewell  Address"  than  it  is  today. 
Parties  which  formerly  might  resort  to  any 
means  and  go  to  any  lengths  in  the  prosecution 
of  a  triumph  are  now,  comparatively  speaking, 
political  in  their  methods.  They  may  still  be 
utilized  by  powers  that  prey,  and  their  action 
is  frequently  perverted  by  lesser  forms  of  cor- 
ruption, but  they  are  no  longer  necessarily  bad. 
They  are  simply  like  men  or  eggs,  good  or  bad 
as  circumstances  determine. 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES     33 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  a  morally  in- 
different institution  must  make  good  its  right  to 
existence  on  some  ground  of  necessity.  Here 
parties  have  all  the  best  of  it.  Not  only  are 
they  necessary  in  the  sense  that  the  natural 
traits  of  human  nature  make  them  inevitable, 
but  in  the  sense  that  democratic  government  is 
impossible  without  them.  As  early  as  Wash- 
ington's time  they  had  become  essential  to  the 
conduct  of  government.  Eoyal  prerogative  had 
ceased  to  be  the  source  of  authority,  and  power 
had  been  transferred,  not,  it  is  true,  to  the  peo- 
ple, but  at  least  to  large  bodies  of  men.  A 
few  individuals  may  get  together  and,  without 
any  artificial  organization  w^hatever,  arrive  at 
an  agreement  on  a  given  question.  Such  ability 
may  even  extend  to  as  many  persons  as  make  up 
the  population  of  a  small  village.  Beyond 
this  point  a  body  of  people  cannot  render  an 
orderly  decision  upon  questions  of  men  or  meas- 
ures without  the  help  of  parties.  We  have 
already  noted  Sir  Henry  Sumner  Maine's  an- 
swer to  his  own  pertinent  question :  * '  In  what 
sense  can  a  multitude  exercise  volition!"  As 
a  matter  of  fact  it  is  through  the  agency  of 
parties  that  the  Demos  makes  up  its  mind  in  all 
large  states.  Elihu  Root  in  a  lecture  on  the 
''Function  of  Political  Parties"  makes  use  of 
the  best  possible  illustration  of  the  confusion 


34  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

which  would  exist  without  parties.  '*If  you 
can  imagine  all  the  sixteen  hundred  thousand 
voters  of  the  State  of  New  York,  for  example, 
going  to  the  polls  on  an  election  day  with  no 
previous  concert  of  action,  but  each  determined 
to  vote  for  the  best  man — that  is,  each  de- 
termined to  vote  for  the  man  who  of  all  his  ac- 
quaintance seems  to  him  the  best  to  fill  the  posi- 
tion, or  for  the  man  whose  opinion  most  closely 
agrees  with  his  upon  some  subject  which  hap- 
pens to  be  uppermost  in  his  mind — what  would 
be  the  result !  What  thousands  of  names  would 
be  found  upon  the  ballots  when  they  came  to 
be  counted!  If  a  majority  of  votes  were  re- 
quired to  elect,  of  course  there  would  never  be 
an  election.  If  only  a  plurality  of  votes  were 
necessary  to  elect,  the  largest  number  of  votes 
cast  for  any  one  man  would  inevitably  be  a  very 
small  proportion  of  the  total  of  votes  cast.  It 
is  highly  probable  that  the  great  majority  of  the 
voters  would  have  preferred  that  the  man  with 
the  plurality  should  not  be  elected,  and  would 
have  been  quite  ready  to  agree  on  some  one  else 
whom  they  all  preferred  to  him  and  considered 
but  little  less  desirable  than  the  various  persons 
for  whom  they  had  cast  their  scattering  ballots. 
The  men  elected  in  such  a  way  would  have  no 
guide  as  to  the  principles,  or  policies,  or  rules 
of  conduct  which  the  majority  of  the  voters 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES     35 

wished  them  to  follow  in  the  offices  to  which 
they  were  elected. 

''Such  a  method  of  conducting  popular  gov- 
ernment, however,  is  not  merely  futile,  it  is 
impossible ;  for  human  nature  is  such  that  long 
before  such  an  election  could  be  reached  some 
men  who  wished  for  the  offices  would  have  taken 
steps  to  secure  in  advance  the  support  of  vot- 
ers; some  men  who  had  business  or  property 
interests  which  they  desired  to  have  protected 
or  promoted  through  the  operations  of  govern- 
ment would  have  taken  steps  to  secure  support 
for  candidates  in  their  interest ;  and  some  men 
who  were  anxious  to  advance  principles  or  pol- 
icies that  they  considered  to  be  for  the  good  of 
the  commonwealth  would  have  taken  steps  to 
secure  support  for  candidates  representing 
those  principles  and  policies.  All  of  these 
would  have  got  their  friends  and  supporters  to 
help  them,  and  in  each  group  a  temporary  or- 
ganization would  have  grown  up  for  effective 
work  in  securing  support.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, when  the  votes  came  to  be  cast,  the 
candidates  of  some  of  these  extempore  organi- 
zations would  inevitably  have  a  plurality  of 
votes,  and  the  great  mass  of  voters  who  did  not 
follow  any  organized  leadership  would  find  that 
their  ballots  were  practically  thrown  away  by 
reason  of  being  scattered  about  among  the  great 


36  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

number  of  candidates  instead  of  being  concen- 
trated so  as  to  be  effective." 

Here  we  have  admirably  set  forth  the  reasons 
for  the  existence  and  the  justification  for  the 
activities  of  parties.  We  must,  however,  go 
further.  Not  only  is  it  necessary  that  there 
be  parties  but  there  must  normally  be  no  more 
than  two  main  or  principal  parties.  If  we  sup- 
pose the  process  of  party  formation  suggested 
by  Mr.  Root  to  go  on,  at  each  succeeding  elec- 
tion there  will  be  fewer  and  fewer  groups.  The 
same  reasoning  which  prompts  individuals  to 
form  groups  instead  of  scattering  their  vote 
resultlessly  apphes  to  induce  groups  to  unite 
into  ever  larger  units.  The  limit  is  reached 
when  the  whole  voting  population  is  divided 
into  two  great  divisions,  the  individual  com- 
prising the  divisions  ready  to  sacrifice  the  many 
little  things  about  which  they  differ  for  the 
sake  of  more  surely  obtaining  the  few  things 
which  they  hold  to  be  of  most  importance.  The 
motive  may  be  office,  business  interest,  or  prin- 
ciple. It  may  be  worthy  or  unworthy.  The 
essential  fact,  however,  is  that  there  is  an  in- 
evitable tendency  for  men,  at  any  rate  men  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  to  cohere  in  huge  po- 
litical organizations  which  engage  in  a  gigantic 
struggle  for  the  control  of  the  government. 
Indeed  no  one  can  truly  understand  our  two- 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES     37 

party  system  without  taking  into  account  the 
Anglo-Saxon's  love  of  games  and  his  willing- 
ness to  sacrifice  many  things  to  a  good  soul-sat- 
isfying contest.  It  is  true  that  there  are  per- 
manently some  groups  of  individuals  too  much 
devoted  to  their  peculiar  doctrines  to  give  al- 
legiance to  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  great 
parties.  It  is  also  true  that  there  have  been 
at  various  times  in  the  history  of  the  United 
States  and  England  third  parties  of  great  size 
and  temporary  political  importance.  They 
were  born  at  times  when  public  opinion  was 
undergoing  one  of  its  periodical  readjustments, 
but  the  number  of  parties  was  promptly  re- 
duced to  two  either  by  the  disappearance  of  one 
of  the  old  parties  or  by  the  absorption  of  the 
new.  The  merit  of  the  two-party  system  lies 
in  the  fact  that  there  is  by  its  means  the  near- 
est possible  approach  to  a  determination  of 
what  the  majority  of  the  people  want.  It  would 
be  idle  to  contend  that  the  system  always  works 
with  the  accuracy  of  a  law  of  nature,  but  over 
long  periods  of  time  and  within  measurable 
limits  it  does  work  out  results  more  satisfactory 
than  any  other  yet  devised.  Out  of  the  strug- 
gles of  the  great  parties  come  compromises  and, 
out  of  the  compromises,  victory  for  one  side 
or  the  other.  Public  opinion  has  through  the 
triumph  of  one  or  the  other  of  them  an  authen- 

2081.50 


38  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

tic  expression,  and  by  them  the  majority  really 
rules. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  countries  of  continental 
Europe  parties  are  not  two,  but  many.  They 
have  not  passed  the  group  stage  of  party  devel- 
opment. There  are  a  variety  of  assignable  rea- 
sons for  this  difference  from  Anglo-Saxon  prac- 
tice. It  is  said  that  the  European  holds  opin- 
ions of  a  deeply  theoretical  tinge  and  that  he  is 
much  slower  to  abandon  them  for  the  practical 
advantage  of  winning  an  election  than  is  the 
Anglo-Saxon.  This  may  be  because  he  holds 
his  opinions  more  sincerely.  It  m'ay  rise  from 
his  lack  of  political  experience  of  the  necessity 
of  compromise.  It  may  be  because  he  is  less 
of  a  natural  sportsman  than  the  Englishman. 
There  are,  besides,  in  each  of  these  countries 
reasons  peculiar  to  each  which  have  tended  to 
keep  political  groups  apart.  In  Italy  there  is 
the  strength  of  local  and  personal  ties.  In 
France  the  presence  of  a  Royalist  group  to  the 
right  and  a  Socialist  group  to  the  left  of  the 
genuine  Republicans  has  tended  to  prevent  the 
creation  of  well-defined  party  division-s  among 
the  great  mass  of  the  people.  In  Germany  the 
inferior  position  of  the  Reichstag  and  the  policy 
of  the  Imperial  Government  in  making  from 
time  to  time  differing  combinations  of  groups 
as  the  source  of  its  majority,  has  had  distinct 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES     39 

effect  in  deterring  the  formation  of  great 
parties.  It  is  wortli  considering  that  all  of 
these  countries  have  had  much  briefer  experi- 
ence with  representative  institutions  than  our 
own  race.  Ever  since  the  days  of  Edward  I  a 
considerable  proportion  of  the  English  people 
have  had  the  privilege  of  selecting  members 
of  Parliament,  and  from  these  centuries  of  ex- 
perience has  been  evolved  the  two-party  sys- 
tem. 

Having  thus  analyzed  the  nature  of  parties 
and  their  place  in  democratic  government  we 
may  now  properly  turn  to  the  ethical  relation 
of  citizen  and  party.  If,  as  we  have  seen,  par- 
ties are  not  intrinsically  evil,  are  inevitable  in 
human  nature,  and  necessary  for  the  conduct 
of  democratic  government,  nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  the  duty  of  the  citizen  to  be  an 
active  partisan.  It  boots  him  nothing  to  urge 
that  the  actual  existing  parties  are  corrupt  and 
full  of  evil  works.  They  are  so  only  because 
of  the  failure  of  himself  and  others  of  his  kind 
to  participate  in  their  activities.  If  the  citizens 
who  actually  take  an  interest  in  the  affairs  of 
any  party  are  honest  and  intelligent,  as  are  the 
majority  of  our  citizens,  that  party  will  be  as 
they  are.  If  the  party  councils  are  left  to  the 
direction  of  the  ill-disposed  minority  the  party 
will  partake  of  their  ill  disposition.    Here  we 


40  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

have  an  essential  instrument  of  government 
which  may  be  turned  to  the  good  or  evil  of  the 
country  as  good  or  evil  men  control  it.  Under 
such  circumstances  to  avoid  party  service  is 
treason. 

Each  voter  should  join  a  party  according  to 
his  or  her  individual  conviction.  Preferably 
the  choice  should  be  of  a  great  national  party 
of  which  there  are  noi*mally  but  two,  although, 
sometimes,  in  periods  of  party  readjustment, 
more.  Of  course  if  one's  deliberate  convic- 
tions lead  into  one  of  the  smaller  parties  which, 
as  has  been  explained,  exist  for  the  expression 
of  particularist  opinion,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
there  is  in  such  matters  no  higher  guide  than  a 
deliberate  conviction.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered, however,  that  in  taking  up  such  an  al- 
legiance one  shuts  himself  off  from  participa- 
tion in  the  great  national  movements  for  achiev- 
able results,  and  by  so  doing  condemns  himself 
to  a  life  of  unavailing  protest.  Once  in  a  party 
one  should  take  an  active  part  in  its  work. 
There  is  little  room  in  these  days  for  the  kid- 
glove  indifferentism  which  some  persons  of  so- 
called  culture  affect  toward  things  political. 
There  is  no  place  at  all  for  a  man  or  woman 
who  reclining  at  ease  captiously  criticises  the 
conduct  of  those  who  toil  in  the  heat  of  the  day. 
The  selfishness  which  prompts  an  active  poli- 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES     41 

tician  to  corruption  is  no  worse  than  the  selfish- 
ness which  keeps  otherwise  incorruptible  men 
out  of  active  politics.  This  does  not  mean  that 
every  citizen  has  got  to  be  a  member  of  party 
committees  and  spend  all  his  time  at  party 
*' Headquarters."  It  simply  means  taking  an 
interest  in  party  proceedings  and  being  ready 
to  participate  intelligently  in  all  the  selective 
functions  to  which  party  members  are  called. 
There  should  be  also  a  reasonable  willingness  to 
accept  more  onerous  duties  if  the  public  good 
demands  it. 

To  the  party  of  his  choice  the  citizen  should 
remain  true  even  when  its  conduct  is  no  longer 
wholly  pleasing  to  him.  His  selection  should 
have  been  made,  not  on  the  ground  that  some 
particular  candidates  at  the  moment  of  his  ad- 
mission to  the  suffrage  excited  his  admiration, 
or  because  the  party  was  his  father's  or  his 
friend's,  but  because  the  declared  principles  and 
general  attitude  of  the  party  represented,  as 
near  as  may  be  in  such  matters,  his  political 
ideals.  So  long  as  this  general  attitude  is  pre- 
served his  allegiance  should  remain  unbroken 
even  though  in  some  particulars  the  policy  of 
the  party  diverges  from  his  standard. 

He  should  leave  his  party  at  the  moment  when 
its  general  attitude  and  his  cease  to  coincide. 
In  other  words,  when  he  differs  with  the  con- 


42  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

trolling  element  of  his  party  on  essential  mat- 
ters, it  is  his  duty  to  seek  elsewhere  that  repre- 
sentation of  his  principles  which  he  can  no 
longer  find  in  the  object  of  his  foi-mer  faith. 
This  obligation  is  the  most  emphatic  of  impera- 
tives. Our  worst  political  evils  in  the  United 
States  and  England  have  arisen  from  that  mis- 
taken party  loyalty  that  induces  men  to  support 
an  organization  which  no  longer  serves  the  pur- 
pose of  its  inception.  All  parties  are  bom  of 
great  principles.  Men  rush  into  them  with  the 
fresh  enthusiasm  of  the  cause  for  which  the 
party  stands.  They  win  success;  place  and 
power  come  to  the  leaders ;  the  principles  of  the 
party  are  achieved  or  relegated  to  oblivion  by 
the  social  and  economic  changes  which  modern 
times  drag  after  one  another  with  such  precip- 
itancy. Does  the  party  then  disband  and  merge 
itself  into  new  organizations  based  on  new  is- 
sues? Never.  It  sometimes  enters  into  a  wild 
and  futile  competition  with  its  rival  for  the 
right  side  of  new  issues  as  they  arise,  with  the 
result  that  it  is  frequently  found  standing  for 
things  which,  in  spite  of  its  manifestoes,  it  is 
afraid  to  undertake. 

Parties  persist  long  after  the  original  reason 
for  their  existence  has  become  ancient  history 
largely  for  the  personal  benefit  of  those  ac- 
tively  connected   Avith    their    organizations, — 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PAETIES     43 

in  otlier  words,  for  tlie  possession  of  ofiice  and 
what  goes  with  it.     This  is  made  possible  by  the 
unthinking  loyalty  of  the  rank  and  file  who  have 
acquired  in  the  days  of  real  struggle  a  degree 
of  esprit  de  corps  which  makes  them  ready  to 
fight  on  in  their  old  battalions.     They  love  their 
party  second  only  to  their  country,  and  some- 
times with  confusion  as  to  the  proper  order  of 
their  affection.     It  is  only  natural  that  old  vet- 
erans who  have  served  the  party  in  its  days  of 
adversity  and  of  triumph  should  come  to  regard 
it  as  an  end  and  not  a  means.     Counting  in 
part  on  this  blind  devotion  and  relying  for  the 
rest  upon  the  use  of  patronage,  the  favor  of 
corporations,  and  the  expenditure  of  money,  the 
partisans  for  profit  keep  the  old  machine  in 
operation.     So  powerful  is  its  momentum  that 
it  may  go  on  victoriously  for  years  after  it  has 
ceased  to  stand  for  any  recognizable  principle 
upon  which  its  supporters  are  agreed.    It  is 
this  effort  to  secure  the  effect — no  longer  se- 
curable  by  agreement  as  to  principles — ^by  ap- 
peals  to   the    selfish   instincts    of   individuals, 
which  has  corrupted  our  politics.     If  it  were 
not  for  the  fetish-like  power  of  the  party  name ; 
if  men  left  parties,  as  they  enter  them,  from 
conviction,  there  would  be  no  party  which  the 
politicians  could  deliver  to  the  corporations, 
nor  would  there  be  great  opportunity  for  them 


44  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

to  practice  successfully  the  smaller  arts  of  cor- 
ruption. 

We  find  in  the  present  party  situation  in  the 
XJnited  States  abundant  illustration  of  what  has 
just  been  said.  The  Rejoublican  and  Demo- 
cratic parties  have  long  since  ceased  to  stand 
for  any  principle  on  which  their  membership 
is  agreed.  Take  the  historic  question  of  the 
tariff.  A  Democrat  from  the  iron  region  of 
Alabama  is  closer  to  the  Republican  from  Penn- 
sylvania on  this  question  than  he  is  to  his  Dem- 
ocratic comrade  from  Texas.  The  two  repre- 
sentatives of  the  iron  industry  will  vote  together 
on  any  schedule  of  the  tariff  that  affects  their 
section,  no  matter  what  the  tariff  principles  of 
their  party  platform  may  be.  The  issues  which 
once  divided  these  parties  have  become  blurred, 
and  their  effort  to  conciliate  all  sections  of  their 
following  has  made  it  almost  impossible  for 
them  to  take  definite  attitudes  on  the  questions 
of  the  deepest  current  interest.  At  the  same 
time  they  have  gradually  become  permeated 
with  corruption.  They  exist  to  serve  the  selfish 
desires  of  a  few,  and  the  creaking  of  their  ma- 
chinery is  silenced  with  the  oil  of  patronage. 
They  both  have  had  glorious  histories.  We 
cannot  escape  a  genuine  thrill  when  the  ''prac- 
ticed hustings  liars"  point  with  pride  to  the 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PAKTIES     45 

splendid  achievements  wliicli  adorn  their  pasts. 
The  memory  of  great  men  still  lingers  redo- 
lently  about  them.    It  is  unfortunately  true, 
however,  that  whatever  of  glory  and  almost  all 
of  interest  which  attaches  to  them  is  historical. 
They  are  meaningless,  except  as  examples  of 
the  compelling  power  of  organization,  because 
they  no  longer  correspond  to  the  real  division 
of  opinion  in  American  life.     This  division  is 
a  threefold  one.     In  the  first  place  there  are 
those  who,  because  they  profit  by  it,  or  because 
they  are  pessimistic  of  the  possibility  of  im- 
provement, or  because  they  are  simply  inert, 
are  desirous  of  permitting  at  least  the  present 
status  to  persist.    In  the  next  place  there  are 
those  who,  recognizing  the  existence  of  certain 
economic  and  social  injustices,  are  ready  to  ap- 
ply to  them  practical  and  concrete  remedies 
while  preserving  the  essential  features  of  our 
present  order.     In  the  third  place  there  are 
those  who,  because  of  the  existence  of  social 
and  economic  injustices  which  they  believe  to 
be  inherent  in  the  present  industrial  system  of 
the  world,  would  overturn  that  system  in  its 
entirety.    We  may  call  these  three  groups  of 
opinion  Conservative,  Progressive  and  Social- 
ist.    Our  adherence  to  one  or  the  other  of  them 
is  inevitable.     Honest  people  may  belong  to  any 


46  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

one  of  them,  and  it  is  certain  that  dishonest 
persons  are  connected  with  every  one  of  them. 
One  may  be  a  Consei"vative  with  the  idea  of 
protecting  his  bank  account,  a  Progressive  for 
reasons  of  popularity,  or  a  Socialist  because  he 
wants  a  chance  at  some  one  else's  property 
when  the  crash  comes.  Most  persons  subscribe 
to  one  or  the  other  from  motives  of  real  con- 
viction. The  overwhelming  majority  of  our 
people  are  Conservatives  or  Progressives,  both 
the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties  being 
resolved  into  these  two  elements.  The  Social- 
ist cannot  for  a  long  time  to  come,  if  ever,  be 
a  great  party.  No  sooner  do  any  of  its  aims 
become  practicable  than  they  become  the  com- 
mon property  of  every  party.  Strangely 
enough,  the  success  of  Socialist  measures  only 
retards  the  growth  of  the  Socialist  party. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  before  long  the 
actual  alignment  of  parties  will  be  made  to  cor- 
respond with  the  real  differences  of  opinion. 
When  that  change  has  been  brought  about  our 
parties  will  be  in  better  shape  than  for  over  a 
quarter  of  a  century  to  perform  their  impor- 
tant function  of  giving  authentic  expression  to 
the  will  of  the  majority.  There  will  be  two 
great  j^arties  under  names  which  the  future  will 
determine.  To  one  of  these  great  parties  it  is 
the  duty  of  each  voter  to  ally  himself,  to  the  end 


PLACE  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES     47 

that  parties  may  well  perform  their  function  of 
determining  the  will  of  the  people. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Beard,  C.  A.,  "American  Government  and  Politics," 
ch.  VI.;  ''Readings,"  ch.  VI. 

Bryce,  James,  "American  Commonwealth,"  vol.  2, 
chs.  LIII-LVI,  and  LXXVI-LXXXVII.  (Fasci- 
nating study  of  operation  of  public  opinion.) 

Bryce,  James,  "Hindrances  to  Good  Citizenship,"  pp. 
75-104. 

Ford,  Henry  Jones,  "Rise  and  Growth  of  American 
Politics." 

GiDDiNGS,  F.  H.,  "Democracy  and  Empire,"  pp.  179- 
196,  251-255. 

Hughes,  C.  E.,  "Conditions  of  Progress  in  Demo- 
cratic Government,"  pp.  59-123. 

Jones,  C.  L.,  "Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections." 

Macy,  J.,  "Political  Parties  in  the  United  States"; 
"Party  Organization  and  Machinery." 

Maine,  Sir  Henry  Sumner,  "The  Nature  of  Democ- 
racy" in  "Popular  Government." 

MoRLEY,  John,  "Life  of  Walpole";  "Life  of  Glad- 
stone." 

OsTROGORSKi,  M.,  "  Dcmocracy  and  the  Organization 
of  Political  Parties." 

Ray,  p.  0.,  "An  Introduction  to  Political  Parties  and 
Practical  Politics,"  pp.  3-11. 

Root,  Elihu,  "The  Citizen's  Part  in  Government," 
pp.  32-93. 


48  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

Smith,  J.  A.,  "The  Spirit  of  American  Government." 
"Washington,  George,  "Farewell  Address." 
Wilson,  Woodrow,  "Constitutional  Government  in 

the  United  States." 
WooDBURN,  J.  A.,  "Political  Parties  and  Party  Prob- 
lems in  the  United  States," 


CHAPTER  IV 

NOMINATIONS   TO   OFFICE 

Intimately  connected  with  the  problem  of 
party  loyalty  are  the  questions  which  arise  out 
of  the  necessity  of  arriving  at  a  preliminary 
understanding  or  agreement  as  to  the  candi- 
dates of  the  party.  Our  English  ancestors 
found  it  unnecessary  to  have  any  machinery  for 
this  purpose.  Down  to  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832, 
suffrage  was  limited;  the  districts  were  small; 
in  many,  the  seat  in  Parliament  was  in  the  ab- 
solute gift  of  some  local  magnate;  and  even 
where  this  was  not  the  case  the  leading  families 
were  so  easily  dominant  that  their  nominee, 
determined  informally,  was  accepted  by  the 
rank  and  file  as  the  party  candidate.  There  is 
still  in  England  no  formal  method  of  nomina- 
tion. Any  man  can  become  a  candidate  for 
Parliament  upon  obtaining  the  signatures  of  a 
nominator  and  seconder  and  eight  other  per- 
sons. Party  candidates  in  various  districts  are 
put  forward  by  the  local  party  committees, 
which  are  purely  voluntary  bodies,  upon  the 
suggestion  of  the  '-Central  Office"  of  the  party 

49 


50  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

in  London.  It  was  natural  that  in  Colonial 
America  the  English  custom  should  prevail,  and 
candidates,  who  were  generally  men  of  wealth 
and  family,  simply  offered  themselves  to  the 
electorate  without  any  preliminary  party  ac- 
tion of  a  formal  kind.  The  one  great  exception 
to  this  was  the  "Boston  Caucus,"  a  group  of 
leading  men  of  the  patriot  side  who  met  to- 
gether and  agreed  to  support  particular  candi- 
dates. It  is  almost  needless  to  say  that  these 
candidates  were  almost  always  successful. 

Immediately  after  the  Revolution,  there  be- 
gan a  process  of  change  in  the  matter  of  nom- 
inations for  office.  This  was  due  in  part  to  the 
rapid  increase  in  population,  accompanied  by 
a  rapid  extension  of  the  suffrage,  which  so 
greatly  enlarged  the  districts  in  which  candi- 
dates were  chosen  that  some  sort  of  pre-ar- 
rangement  became  necessary  to  party  success. 
Even  more  important  was  the  authoritative  se- 
lection in  advance  of  candidates  for  the  increas- 
ing number  of  offices  filled  by  the  vote  of  the 
State  at  large.  As  early  as  1790  the  members 
of  the  legislature  of  one  of  the  parties  in  the 
State  of  Rhode  Island  met  together  in  caucus 
for  the  purpose  of  nominating  candidates  for 
state  offices.  After  1791  this  method  of  nom- 
ination became  general  throughout  the  United 
States.    It    was    a    very    natural    expedient. 


NOMINATIONS  TO  OFFICE  51 

These  legislators  were  already  assembled — and 
in  those  times  of  slow  and  expensive  travel  the 
assembling  of  a  body  of  representatives  was 
no  easy  matter — and  they  might  very  well  be 
taken  to  represent  the  feeling  of  the  districts 
from  which  they  came.  The  difficulty  was  that 
in  such  a  caucus  those  districts  which  happened 
to  have  elected  a  member  of  the  opposite  po- 
litical party  to  the  legislature  were  unrepre- 
sented. This  led  to  the  system  known  as  the 
** Mixed  Caucus,"  in  which  the  districts  other- 
wise unrepresented  were  represented  by  dele- 
gates especially  elected  for  this  purpose. 

In  the  meanwhile  there  had  grown  up  a  still 
more  serious  problem;  namely,  that  of  nom- 
inating candidates  for  President  of  the  United 
States  for  whom  the  party  electors  in  the  sev- 
eral States  could  be  expected  to  vote.  In  the 
first  two  elections  there  was,  of  course,  practi- 
cally speaking,  no  contest.  In  1800  Adams  and 
Jefferson  were  nominated  by  secret  caucuses  of 
the  Federalist  and  Eepublican  members  of  Con- 
gress. In  1804  the  Republicans  nominated  Jef- 
ferson by  an  "open"  caucus,  or  one  of  which  no 
secret  was  made.  Henceforward  until  1824 
there  was  but  one  caucus  every  four  years,  there 
being  but  one  party.  Thus  the  caucus  seemed, 
at  least,  to  have  the  power  of  absolutely  de- 
termining who  should  be  President,  the  candl- 


52  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

date  agreed  upon  by  it  receiving,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  the  votes  of  the  only  party.  Naturally 
enough,  this  state  of  affairs  produced  dissatis- 
faction. Men  began  to  say  that  Congress  was 
usurping  a  power  which  had  not  been  granted  to 
it  by  the  Constitution.  They  dubbed  the  insti- 
tution ''King  Caucus,"  and  the  issue  of  its  de- 
thronement became  one  of  the  principal  ele- 
ments in  national  politics.  The  strongest  op- 
position to  the  caucus  came  from  the  newer 
Western  States  where  the  s-pirit  of  democracy 
was  very  keen.  This  spirit  found  a  leader  in 
Andrew  Jackson,  and  he  became,  in  1824,  a 
candidate  for  the  Presidency  in  opposition  to 
the  caucus  candidate.  By  this  time  so  general 
had  become  hostility  to  the  caucus  that  only 
66  out  of  216  members  of  Congress  had  at- 
tended the  caucus  whicfh  had  nominated  Wil- 
liam H.  Crawford  for  the  Presidency.  In  the 
campaign  that  followed,  Jackson  received  a 
plurality  of  the  popular  vote,  while  Crawford 
ran  a  poor  third.  Congress  elected  Adams  to 
the  Presidency,  but  the  caucus  was  dead,  and 
no  attempt  has  since  been  made  to  revive  it. 
Its  downfall  insured  the  breaking  up  of  the  leg- 
islative caucus  system  in  the  several  States. 

The  abandonment  of  the  caucus  did  not,  how- 
ever, do  away  with  the  necessity  of  preliminary 
agreement  as  to  candidates  if  the  party  was  to 


NOMINATIONS  TO  OFFICE  53 

be  successful.  A  new  method  of  selecting  can- 
didates had  to  be  developed,  and  this  method 
was  the  ''delegate  convention,"  consisting  en- 
tirely of  delegates  elected  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  making  the  necessary  nominations.  The 
first  of  these  delegate  conventions  occurred  in 
Pennsylvania  in  1817,  and  became  the  fixed  cus- 
tom for  both  parties  in  that  State  in  1823.  Dur- 
ing the  next  ten  years  it  came  into  universal 
use  as  a  method  of  nominating  state  officers. 
At  the  same  time,  the  nomination  of  candidates 
for  the  Presidency  came  to  be  taken  up  by  simi- 
lar conventions.  In  1831,  the  Anti-Masonic 
party,  a  purely  ephemeral  organization,  held  the 
first  national  delegate  convention  for  the  pur- 
pose of  nominating  a  candidate  for  President. 
In  December  of  the  same  year  the  Anti-Jackson 
forces  met  and  nominated  Clay;  while  in  May, 
1832,  a  Jackson  convention  met  for  the  purpose 
of  endorsing  Van  Buren  as  a  candidate  for 
Vice-President.  Van  Buren  was  nominated  for 
the  Presidency  in  1835  by  a  Democratic  conven- 
tion, while  the  opposing  forces  that  year  held 
no  convention.  In  1840,  however,  both  Demo- 
crats and  Whigs  employed  the  convention  sys- 
tem of  nomination,  and  every  political  party 
has  done  so  previous  to  each  election  since  that 
time. 

The  system  of  party  organization  which  has 


54  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

been  brouglit  into  existence  by  these  changes, 
and  which  maintained  itself  practically  un- 
broken throughout  the  remainder  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  was,  in  theory,  at  least,  popular 
and  representative.  Nothing  could  be  in  ap- 
pearance more  democratic.  There  existed  a 
regular  hierarchy  of  conventions  built  one  upon 
the  other,  beginning  with  the  town,  village,  or 
ward  caucus  in  which  all  voters  of  the  party 
were  supposed  to  participate  directly,  and  ex- 
tending up  through  district,  city,  county,  con- 
gressional, state  and  national  conventions. 
This  scheme  of  party  control  was  adopted  at 
the  instance  of  the  reformers  of  1830  in  place 
of  what  they  called  the  corrupt  and  aristocratic 
system  which  had  preceded  it. 

There  is  no  question  but  that  the  convention 
was  a  great  improvement  upon  legislative  and 
congressional  caucuses.  The  new  system  was, 
however,  open  to  many  abuses,  which,  through- 
out the  next  two-thirds  of  a  century,  developed 
alarmingly.  In  the  first  place,  the  town,  vil- 
lage and  ward  primaries  or  caucuses,  on  which 
the  whole  superstructure  was  reared,  were  not 
fairly  conducted.  There  was  no  legal  regula- 
tion of  them.  The  right  to  membership  and 
participation  in  them  was  a  matter  not  deter- 
mined by  law  but  subject  to  the  will  or  caprice 
of  the  presiding  officer,  or,  at  best,  of  the  other 


NOMINATIONS  TO  OFFICE  55 

persons  present.  There  were  no  penalties  pro- 
vided for  bribery,  intimidation,  nor  for  frauds 
in  counting  the  votes.  There  was  no  provision 
for  adequate  notice  being  given  of  the  intention 
to  hold  such  a  caucus,  and  "snap"  caucuses 
were  a  common  device  of  the  wily  politicians. 
They  were  attended  by  the  roughest  elements, 
and  were  frequently  the  scenes  of  disgraceful 
disorder.  Peaceable  citizens  tended  to  shun 
them,  and  their  control  came  quite  rapidly  into 
the  hands  of  a  new  class  which  the  politics  of 
the  Jacksonian  era  introduced  into  American 
society — the  professional  politician  and  office 
holder.  Jackson  did  not  invent  the  so-called 
spoils  system,  by  which  offices  were  used  as  a 
reward  for  political  services,  but  he  applied  it 
with  a  vigor  and  completeness  which  had  never 
been  witnessed  in  American  history  before. 
Since  his  time  there  has  always  been  a  class  of 
men  making,  or  hoping  to  make,  their  bread  and 
butter  by  politics  and,  in  consequence,  instant 
in  every  partisan  service.  Professor  Goodnow, 
in  his  "Politics  and  Administration,"  shows 
how  the  establishment  of  this  spoils  system  was 
a  necessary  evil  in  that  it  served  the  otherwise 
unaccomplishable  purpose  of  so  solidifying  the 
parties  as  to  make  it  possible  for  our  check  and 
balance  system  of  government  to  work  without 
constant  friction.    Control  of  all  the  branches 


56  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

of  government  at  once  by  the  same  party  is, 
according  to  this  theor^^  the  only  way  in  which 
our  institutions  can  be  made  effectively  op- 
erative. Whether  the  service  rendered  in  this 
regard  by  the  spoils  system  was  as  valuable  as 
has  been  claimed,  it  is  certainly  true  that  the 
spoilsmen  obtained  a  firm  grip  upon  the  politi- 
cal organizations  through  their  control  of  the 
local  primaries  which  in  turn  determined  the 
complexion  of  the  whole  series  of  conventions. 
We  shall  see  in  a  subsequent  chapter  some  of 
the  part  that  has  been  played  by  the  saloon 
keeper  and  others  of  his  ilk  in  the  perfection  of 
this  political  machine.  It  is  enough  for  our 
present  purpose  to  know  that  the  party  pri- 
maries being  misrepresentative  of  the  party 
membership,  the  delegate  conventions  above 
them  were  irresponsible  and  corrupt.  Thus,  a 
system  which  owed  its  inception  to  the  spirit 
of  democracy  came  to  be  in  its  working  some- 
thing very  other  than  democratic. 

The  first  attempt  to  regulate  primaries  was 
made  by  the  State  of  California  in  March,  1866. 
This  law  was  an  optional  one,  which  might  or 
might  not  be  adopted  by  the  various  political 
parties.  If  adopted,  it  provided  for  due  notice 
of  the  call,  for  a  preliminary  statement  of  the 
qualifications  of  the  members  who  were  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  primary,  for  a  supervisor  of  the 


NOMINATIONS  TO  OFFICE  57 

balloting'  who  was  to  be  sworn  to  perform  bis 
duties    properly,    and   for   penalties    for    any 
breach  of  the  law.    New  York,  in  the  same  year, 
established  a  penalty  for  bribery,  intimidation, 
etc.,    at   a  primary.    In   1874   California   put 
about  primaiy  elections  practically  the  same 
safeguards  as  those  which  its  laws  had  previ- 
ously thrown  around  regular  elections,  and  by 
1890  half  of  the  States  had  adopted  some  kind 
of  primary  regulation.    With  the  adoption  of 
the   Australian   ballot   which  began  with   the 
State  of  Massachusetts  in  1888,  and  was  rapidly 
followed  by  other  States,  there  arose,  of  course, 
an  absolute  necessity  of  regulating  by  law  the 
system  of  nominations.     The  new  ballot  laws 
recognized  the  existence  of  parties,  and  pro- 
vided for  printing  on  the  ballot  the  party  desig- 
nation of  the  various  candidates.     There  had 
to  be,  of  course,  some  way  in  which  an  authori- 
tative determination  could  be  made  of  the  can- 
didate entitled  to  use  the  party  name.     The  re- 
sult was  that  practically  every  State  adopted 
primary  regulations  similar  to  those  which  pro- 
tect other  elections,  while  regulatory  provisions 
have  been  applied  to  the  conduct  of  conventions 
within  the  States.     So  far,  no  effort  has  been 
made  to  regulate  by  federal  law  the  conduct  of 
a  national  convention. 
Even  regulated  conventions  showed  a  dispo- 


58  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

sition  to  be  controlled  more  readily  by  political 
machines  tlian  the  people  would  have  them. 
The  choice  of  delegates  has  been  one  of  the 
tasks  most  commonly  shirked  by  the  busy  citi- 
zen and  there  has  never  been  evolved  any  very 
effective  way  of  holding  the  members  of  these 
conventions  responsible  for  the  work  they  do. 
It  was  not  unnatural,  therefore,  that  politicians 
of  the  reforming  instinct,  finding  themselves 
thwarted  by  the  manipulations  of  the  old-time 
leaders  in  conventions,  turned  an  eye  of  favor 
upon  the  system  of  direct  nominations.  This 
plan  had  been  proposed  as  early  as  1878  in  Mc- 
Millan 's  ' '  Elective  Franchise. ' '  The  first  State 
to  adopt  the  primary  on  a  state-wide  scale  was 
Wisconsin,  in  1903.  Oregon  and  Alabama  fol- 
lowed in  1904,  and  since  that  time  about  half  of 
the  States  of  the  Union  have  adopted  direct 
primary  laws.  These  direct  primary  laws  jjer- 
mitted  the  names  of  the  candidates  for  the  sev- 
eral offices  to  be  placed  upon  the  primary  ballot 
by  the  presentation  of  a  petition  signed  by  a  cer- 
tain proportion  of  the  qualified  voters  of  the 
constituency.  In  order  to  participate  in  a  pri- 
mary election,  it  is  usually  necessary  for  the 
voter  to  have  designated  at  the  time  of  registra- 
tion with  which  political  party  he  intends  to 
affiliate,  which  declaration  or  designation  stands 
for  at  least  a  year.     The  results  of  the  direct 


NOMINATIONS  TO  OFFICE  59 

primary  have  not  been  such  as  to  excite  either 
great  enthusiasra  on  the  part  of  the  reformers 
or  great  chagrin  on  the  part  of  political  ma- 
chinists. It  seems  that  the  direct  primary  has 
made  it  somewhat  more  easy  for  a  reform  move- 
ment, strongly  backed  and  well  organized,  to 
overthrow  the  machine.  It  has  not,  however, 
obviated  the  necessity  for  organization.  To 
carry  the  state  primary  for  a  particular  candi- 
date for  Governor  requires  about  the  same  exer- 
tion and  the  same  vigor  of  organization  neces- 
sary to  carry  an  ordinary  election.  The  result 
is  that  in  ordinary  times,  where  people  are  not 
greatly  aroused,  the  old  machine  has  a  great 
advantage  over  any  independent  movement. 
The  net  result  may  be  summed  up  to  be  that  it 
is  now  possible,  by  the  liberal  expenditure  of 
energy  and  the  erection  of  a  strong  organiza- 
tion, to  beat  an  organization  already  firmly  in- 
trenched. The  remarkable  facility  with  which 
the  American  people  organize,  politically^ — 
marvelously  well  illustrated  in  the  sudden  rise 
of  the  Progressive  party — is  the  condition 
which  makes  the  direct  primary  really  service- 
able to  reform. 

The  latest  application  of  the  direct  primary  is 
the  so-called  ''presidential  preference  pri- 
mary," in  which  the  voters  of  a  State  are  given 
an  opportunity  to  indicate  their  choice  of  the 


60  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

party  candidate  for  tlie  presidency.  At  the 
same  time,  tliey  elect  delegates  to  the  national 
convention,  who  may  or  may  not  be  pledged  to 
vote  for  a  particular  candidate.  There  are 
great  advantages  in  this  method  of  procedure 
over  the  old  methods  of  choosing  delegates  to 
national  conventions.  It  does  give  a  choice  to 
the  people,  and  there  is  little  doubt  but  that  this 
direct  method  of  election  of  delegates  will  soon 
supplant  all  other  methods.  Here,  however,  we 
run  flat  against  one  of  those  peculiar  difficul- 
ties which  the  Federal  character  of  our  govern- 
ment often  creates.  While  the  State  may  pro- 
vide a  method  of  electing  delegates  to  the  na- 
tional conventions,  it  cannot  at  all  regulate  the 
right  of  those  delegates  to  sit  in  the  national 
conventions.  A  national  convention  is  called 
by  the  national  committee  of  the  party.  This 
national  committee  is  in  the  eyes  of  the  law 
simply  the  executive  committee  of  a  volun- 
taiy  organization,  and  it  has  the  right  to 
put  into  its  call  any  terms  it  likes.  It  could 
provide  that  only  blue-eyed  or  black-haired 
people  should  be  delegates  to  the  convention. 
Over  such  a  national  voluntaiy  organization  no 
state  law  other  than  that  of  the  jurisdiction 
in  which  the  individual  members  happen  to  be 
at  the  moment  can  have  any  legal  authority. 
The  result  is  such  unfortunate  circumstances 


NOMINATIONS  TO  OFFICE  61 

as  those  which  led  the  Eepublican  national 
convention  of  1912  to  refuse  to  seat  two  dele- 
gates duly  ele<jted  from  California  under  the 
law  of  that  State.  National  conventions  can 
be  successfully  regulated  only  by  the  nation. 
A  statute  for  this  purpose  is  now  probably  un- 
constitutional, but  the  Constitution  should  be 
amended  to  allow  of  the  regulation  of  this  im- 
portant step  in  the  choice  of  a  president. 

We  have  already  seen  the  degree  of  success 
which  the  direct  primary  has  achieved  in  break- 
ing the  grip  of  the  machine  politician.     There 
are,  however,  certain  defects  of  the  direct  pri- 
mary, as  it  ordinarily  exists.     The  first  of  these 
is  the  possibility  of  packing  the  primary.    Pri- 
maries are  packed  both  intentionally  and  by  an 
unconscious  disposition  of  the  people  to  par- 
ticipate   in    real    struggles.     For   example,   if 
there  be  in  a  State  a  severe  contest  pending  in 
the  Republican  primary,  there  will  be  a  ten- 
dency for  voters,  when  registering,  even  though 
they  intend  to  vote  the  ticket  of  some  other 
party  in  the  election,  to  register  in  the  Eepub- 
lican primary.     This  was  very  evident  in  the 
primary  elections  in  California  in  1910  and 
1912.    Furthermore,  it  is  possible  for  the  boss 
of  one  party  to  lend  to  the  boss  of  another  party 
voters  who  will  support  him  in  a  primary  con- 
test.   The  other  principal  defect  of  the  direct 


62  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

primary  is  tliat  even  a  greater  premium  than 
before  is  placed  upon  capturing  the  party  nom- 
ination, and  success  in  the  party  comes  to  be 
sought  too  eagerly.  It  does  not  give  us  any 
escape  from  the  necessity  of  getting  the  party 
label  attached  to  the  candidate  in  order  to  in- 
sure his  success.  This  was  very  well  illus- 
trated in  the  primary  election  in  California  in 
the  fall  of  1912.  The  great  majority  of  Cali- 
fornia Republicans  had  become  Progressives, 
and  were  detennined  to  support  the  candidates 
of  the  Progressive  party.  They  felt,  however, 
that  the  control  of  the  Republican  organiza- 
tion, which  they  had  secured  by  carrying  the 
direct  primaiy  in  1910  when  they  had  no  suspi- 
cion of  being  anything  but  Republicans,  was  too 
valuable  to  be  surrendered  to  their  opponents 
without  a  struggle.  They  estimated  highly — 
perhaps  too  highly — the  value  of  the  Republi- 
can name.  The  result  was  that  they  went  into 
the  Republican  party,  carried  it  for  their  candi- 
dates, and  made  Roosevelt  and  Johnson  the 
Republican  candidates  in  California.  This  en- 
abled the  Taf  t  Republicans  to  raise  the  cry  that 
they  had  been  disfranchised,  although  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  how,  under  the  existing  state  of  the 
law  and  of  human  nature,  the  Progressives 
could  have  done  anything  other  than  they  did. 
The  Taft  Republicans  went  over  in  a  body  to 


NOMINATIONS  TO  OFFICE  63 

Wilson,  and  the  electoral  vote  of  the  State  was 
split.  Frequently  the  consequences  of  the 
eager  pursuit  of  the  party  name  are  more  seri- 
ous than  those  just  mentioned.  They  often 
lead  to  deliberate  fraud  and  corruption. 

In  no  other  country  of  the  world,  as  we  have 
seen,  are  executive  officers  elected  at  large. 
This,  of  course,  renders  the  problem  of  nomina- 
tions and  elections  much  more  simple  than  in 
this  country.  It  is,  however,  worth  while  for 
us  to  remember  that  in  none  of  the  great  Euro- 
pean countries  does  a  party  nomination  have 
anything  to  do  with  getting  a  man's  name  on 
the  ballot.  In  England,  as  we  have  observed, 
any  man  who  can  get  ten  backers  can  run  for 
Parliament.  In  France,  the  candidate  for  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  has  merely  to  indicate 
that  he  intends  to  run.  In  Prussia  he  does  not 
have  to  go  through  this  formality;  he  simply 
runs.  The  provisions  for  balloting  are  still  the 
same  or  worse  than  the  crude  ones  which  pre- 
vailed in  the  United  States  prior  to  1890.  No 
one  would  for  a  moment  suggest  going  back  to 
their  antiquated  practice  in  this  respect.  In 
England,  however,  the  ballot,  although  much 
shorter  than  ours,  is  of  the  same  sort.  Indeed, 
the  so-called  Australian  ballot  is  really  the  Eng- 
lish ballot,  and  it  was,  more  than  anything  else, 
prejudice  against  the  English  name,  which  led 


64  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

to  our  use  of  the  term  Australian.  On  this 
English  ballot  there  appear  simply  the  names 
of  the  candidates  with  their  addresses  and  their 
business.  There  is  no  party  designation  what- 
ever. Candidates  are  the  nomiiiees  of  parties, 
but  the  voters  are  expected  to  know  the  name 
of  their  candidate  well  enough  to  get  along  with- 
out the  assistance  of  a  party  designation.  In 
England,  the  candidates  are  compelled  to  pay 
the  expenses  of  polling — a  thing  which  serves  to 
keep  out  people  who  stand  no  chance  of  election. 
In  France  and  Prussia,  however,  another 
method  is  adopted.  Two  elections  are  held. 
At  the  tirst  an  absolute  majority  of  the  votes 
cast  is  necessary  for  an  election.  If  no  one  re- 
ceives such  a  majority,  a  second  election  is  re- 
sorted to.  In  France,  at  the  second  election 
there  is  no  limit  to  the  number  of  candidates, 
and  a  simple  plurality  wins.  In  Germany,  the 
second  election  is  confined  to  the  two  candidates 
who  receive  the  highest  vote  at  the  first.  This 
German  method  has  been  adopted  by  many 
American  cities,  including  practically  all  those 
which  possess  the  commission  form  of  govern- 
ment. A  variation  of  this  form  was  adopted 
by  the  city  of  Des  Moines,  where  the  first  elec- 
tion simply  serves  to  narrow  the  number  of 
candidates  to  two,  without  the  possibility  of 
any  candidate  being  elected  at  that  time,  no  mat- 


NOMINATIONS  TO  OFFICE  65 

ter  what  vote  lie  receives.  There  are  great 
advantages  to  this  Gennan  system,  or  its  Des 
Moines  modification.  Adequate  provision  is 
made  for  reducing  the  number  of  candidates. 
The  person  ultimately  elected  must  be  the  choice 
of  a  majority  of  the  people.  He  may  not  be 
the  man  whom  they  would  prefer  above  all 
others,  but  he  is  surely  the  second  choice,  at 
least,  of  the  majority.  There  is  no  necessity 
under  this  system  of  a  party  label.  There  is  no 
premium  for  capturing  the  party  standard.  It 
is  no  more  expensive  than  the  direct  primary 
system,  which  involves,  of  course,  two  state- 
wide elections. 

The  writer  would  not  have  you  imagine  that 
he  is  opposed  to  political  parties.  Indeed,  he 
has  already  stated  emphatically  the  necessity 
of  political  parties  in  a  democracy.  They 
should,  however,  be  reduced  to  their  proper 
place,  and  not  made  the  well-nigh  exclusive 
means  of  getting  for  a  candidate  favorable  con- 
sideration upon  the  ballot.  Under  the  two-elec- 
tion system  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  elaborate 
regulation  of  party  management  and  control. 
The  ease  with  which  a  rival  candidate  can  be 
put  in  the  field  disposes  of  the  temptation  to 
use  underhand  methods  to  secure  a  nomination. 
It  does  not  do  away  with  parties.  They  are 
still  necessary  to  the  success  of  democratic  gov- 


66     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

ernment,  but  simply  as  organizations  to  i^ro- 
mote  the  conduct  of  government  ^'on  a  par- 
ticular principle,"  not  as  monopolies  of  the 
nomination  market.  In  cities,  according  to  the 
observation  of  the  writer,  the  effect  of  the 
double-election  system  is  to  bring  into  exist- 
ence before  each  election  temporary  parties 
which  assume  all  the  attributes  of  politi- 
cal organization  and  die  with  the  hilarity  of 
election  night.  Another  result  has  been  that 
the  old  trick  of  the  ''gang"  of  secretly  promot- 
ing respectable  candidacies  in  order  to  divide 
the  vote  of  the  good  people  is  rendered  nega- 
tive by  the  requirement  of  a  majority  for  elec- 
tion. We  may  then  look  foi"ward  to  the  direct 
primary  ultimately  giving  w^ay  to  a  double  or 
majority  election  system,  in  which  there  shall 
be  no  partisan  designations  on  the  ballot,  or  to 
some  system  of  preferential  vote  which  will 
accomplish  a  similar  result  without  the  neces- 
sity for  two  elections. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

American    and    English    Encyclopedia   of   Law,    see 

"Elections,"  vol.  X. 
American  Political  Science  Association  Proceedings, 

1907,  pp.  175-179. 
Bishop,  Cortlandt,  F.,  "History  of  Elections  in  the 

American  Colonies." 


NOMINATIONS  TO  OFFICE  67 

Bryce,  James,   "American  Commonwealth,"  vol  2, 

ch.  LIX-LXX. 
Dallinger,  F.  W.,  ''Nominations  for  Elective  Office 

in  the  United  States. ' ' 
Eaton,  Dorman  B.,  "The  Independent  Movement  in 

New    York";    "Primary    Elections,"    in    Lalor's 

"Encyclopedia    of    Political    Science,"    vol.    Ill, 

p.  343. 
GooDNOW,  Frank  J.,  "Politics  and  Administration." 

(The    relation    of    the    spoils    system    and    party 

machinery.) 
Haynes,  George  H.,  "The  Election  of  Senators." 
Johnston,  A.,  "Nominating  Conventions,"  in  Lalor's 

"Cyclopedia,"  vol.  II,  p.  1039. 
Jones,  C.  L.,  "Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections." 
Lawton,  George  W.,  "The  American   Caucus  Sys- 
tem." 
Lowell,  A,  L.,  "Government  of  England,"  ch.  X. 

(The  English  System.) 
Macy,  Jesse,  "Party  Organization  and  Machinery." 
Merriam,  C.  E.,  "Primary  Elections."     (Best  short 

and  up-to-date  book.) 
Michigan  Political  Science  Association  Proceedings, 

1905. 
McMillan,  Duncan  C,  "The  Elective  Franchise  in 

the  United  States." 
National  Municipal  League  Proceedings.     (Numerous 

excellent  papers.) 
Ostrogorski,  M.,  "Democracy  and  the  Organization 

of  Political  Parties,"  vol.  II.     (The  great  work  on 

this  subject.) 


68  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  "Essays  on  Practical  Politics." 
For  further  bibliography,  see  Merriam  "Primary 
Elections"  and  Library  of  Congress  lists  on  Primary 
Elections  and  Political  Parties. 


_  M.  a  (HARVO) 

CKrr  rnmATmi  osipt. 


CHAPTER  y 

MISREPRESENTATIVE   LEGISLATURES 

When  our  Revolutionary  forefathers  discov- 
ered themselves  to  be  without  legal  goverament 
in  the  latter  part  of  1775,  they  began  to  take 
thought  as  to  the  form  of  organization  best 
suited  to  their  needs.  They  naturally  exalted 
the  Legislature  as  the  most  important  feature 
of  their  government.  During  the  long  period 
of  controversy  with  the  mother  country  which 
preceded  the  Revolution,  it  had  been  the  Legis- 
lature which,  representing  the  people,  had  con- 
tended with  the  Governor,  representing  the 
crown.  Executive  power  had  thereby  become 
unpopular;  legislative  power,  popular.  The 
legislatures  were  in  many  instances  given 
power  to  elect  the  governor  and  all  other  state 
officers.  Only  in  Massachusetts  were  they  sub- 
jected to  the  gubernatorial  veto.^  They  were, 
for  the  moment,  practically  all  powerful. 
These  legislatures,  however,  showed  unfor- 
tunately little  capacity  in  dealing  with  the  criti- 

1  Veto  existed  in  first  New  York  constitution  but  was  exer- 
cised by  Council  of  Revision. 

69 


70  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

cal  conditions  which  followed  the  close  of  the 
Revolution.  Influenced  by  this  experience  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  result  of 
a  moderately  conservative  reaction,  gave  to  the 
chief  executive  an  independent  position,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  a  share  in  legislation, 
through  the  veto.  The  vigor  of  the  new  federal 
government  led  the  States,  by  example,  to  give 
their  executives  the  same  independence  and 
power.  From  that  day  to  this  the  influence  of 
the  legislature  has  declined  while  that  of  the 
executive  has  been  maintained. 

The  most  obvious  reason  for  this  change  has 
been  that  the  executive  has  proved  to  be  the 
only  representative  of  all  people  of  State  and 
nation.  In  our  choice  of  representatives  in  the 
state  legislature  and  in  Congress  we  have 
been  governed  often  by  considerations  of  local 
advantage.  "We  have  been  much  more  con- 
cerned as  to  whether  our  Congressman  could 
secure  for  us  a  handsome  and  expensive  federal 
building  than  as  to  whether  he  held  sound  views 
on  questions  of  great  national  importance.  We 
have  been  more  anxious  that  our  State  legis- 
lator should  get  for  us  some  desired  local  ex- 
penditure of  State  money  than  he  should  be  a 
real  representative  of  the  whole  people  of  the 
State.  Legislative  bodies  made  up  of  persons 
chosen  on  such  grounds  have  never  been,  and 


LEGISLATUEES  71 

Can  never  be,  genuinely  representative  of  tlie 
whole  community.  As  our  legislatures  have  de- 
clined, we  have  come  more  and  more  to  look  to 
the  Governor  and  the  President,  with  their  veto 
power  and  their  commanding  moral  position, 
actually  to  govern  for  us.  This  is  no  mere 
popular  superstition.  It  is  the  view  of  prac- 
tically every  well-informed,  conservative  man 
in  the  country.  President  Nicholas  Murray 
Butler  of  Columbia  University,  exponent  of  the 
extreme  type  of  political  conservatism,  declared 
in  his  Charter  Day  address  at  the  University  of 
California  in  1906:  *'As  a  matter  of  fact,  if 
our  American  political  experience  proves  any- 
thing, it  proves  that  the  executive  branch  of  the 
government  is  the  most  efficient  representative 
and  spokesman  that  the  popular  will  has.  So 
it  was  with  Lincoln  in  the  Civil  War ;  so  it  was 
with  Cleveland  in  the  struggle  for  a  monetary 
system ;  so  it  was  with  Koosevelt  in  the  battle 
against  privilege  and  greed.  Indeed,  in  every 
real  sense,  the  popular  will  in  the  United  States 
has  no  other  representative,  for  political  pur- 
poses, than  the  President."  The  names  of 
Stubbs  of  Kansas,  LaFollette  of  Wisconsin, 
Hughes  of  New  York,  and  Johnson  of  Cali- 
fornia are  sufficient  in  themselves  to  establish 
the  fact  of  the  prominence  in  state  affairs  of  the 
Governor. 


72  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

The  decline  of  legislatures  is  evident  also  in 
the  limits  which  have  been  placed  upon  them 
by  state  constitutions.  In  the  first  place,  all 
the  later  constitutions  have,  out  of  distrust  of 
the  legislature,  been  made  to  contain  very  many 
matters  which,  in  the  earlier  documents,  were 
left  to  the  discretion  of  the  law-making  bodies. 
The  constitution  of  the  State  of  California,  as 
it  now  stands,  would  occupy  over  one  hundred 
pages  of  this  book.  It  descends  to  the  most 
minute  details,  of  course  removing  all  these 
matters  from  the  competence  of  the  legislature. 
Most  of  the  state  constitutions  now  limit  the 
frequency  and  duration  of  legislative  sessions, 
apparently  on  the  theory  that  the  less  of  legis- 
lation the  better.  In  Alabama  there  is  but  one 
regular  session  of  the  legislature  eveiy  four 
years.  In  many  States  the  duration  of  the 
legislative  session  is  limited  to  ninety,  sixty,  or 
even  forty  days.  Further,  the  field  of  special 
legislation  has  been  closed  to  legislators.  Ad- 
vantageous and  almost  essential  as  is  the  power 
of  passing  statutes  to  fit  the  varying  needs  of 
the  localities  of  a  great  State,  the  abuses  of  the 
power  had  been  so  continuous  and  excessive, 
that  the  people  determined,  perhaps  wisely  and 
certainly  with  justification,  deliberately  to  cut 
off  the  offending  member.  The  current  jests 
as  to  relative  social  advantage  of  service  in  the 


LEGISLATURES  73 

state  legislature  and  in  ttie  penitentiary  are 
indications  of  the  low  esteem  in  which  our  legis- 
lative bodies  are  held.  This  low  esteem  has 
had  a  disastrous  effect  upon  the  personnel  of 
these  bodies,  and  the  poor  character  of  their  per- 
sonnel has,  in  turn,  tended  to  added  disrespect. 
At  the  same  time,  the  vital  importance  of  the 
legislature  as  an  instrument  of  government  has 
not  declined.  The  law-making  powers  of  the 
state  legislature  extend  over  an  enormous  range 
of  subjects.  It  can  make  or  mar  the  happiness 
and  welfare  of  the  whole  community.  We  are 
truly  in  an  unfortunate  position  when  such 
great  powers  are  entrusted  to  bodies  so  little 
trusted,  and  so  frequently  unworthy  of  trust. 

If  we  would  penetrate  into  the  reasons  for 
the  unfortunate  condition  of  our  American 
legislatures,  we  must  consider,  briefly,  the  or- 
ganization of  legislative  bodies.  In  the  last 
chapter  we  saw  that  any  considerable  body  of 
men  is  incapable  of  independent  volition;  that 
it  simply  can  adopt  only  what  is  suggested  to 
it.  This  applies  to  the  problem  of  the  legis- 
lature very  pertinently.  Edwin  L.  Godkin, 
in  his  essay  on  the  "Decline  of  Legislatures," 
pointed  out  a  very  significant  fact  frequently 
lost  sight  of  by  serious  students  of  the  subject 
— that  the  Roman  Senate,  the  archetype  of 
legislative  assemblies,  was  a  consultative,  not  an 


74  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

initiatory,  body.  It  deliberated  and  said  yes 
or  no  to  the  propositions  of  the  magistrates  and 
people.  That  other  great  model  of  a  legisla- 
ture, the  only  one  which  has  had  long  and 
continuous  existence  to  the  present  time,  the 
British  House  of  Commons,  has  also,  through- 
out its  history,  limited  itself  to  simple  con- 
sultatory  functions.  In  all  its  struggles  with 
the  crown,  the  demand  of  the  Commons  was 
that  they  were  to  be  consulted  in  the  matter  of 
making  and  unmaking  laws.  It  is  true  that 
individual  members  of  the  House  have  had  from 
early  times  the  right  of  introducing  bills,  and 
that  private  and  local  measures  may  be  intro- 
duced by  petition  of  those  concerned,  but  there 
has  never  been  a  time  in  the  history  of  the 
House  when  this  right  of  private  introduction 
of  bills  has  been  of  prime  importance.  The 
chief  desire  of  the  House,  and  its  chief  busi- 
ness, has  been  to  register  approval  or  disap- 
proval of  the  measures  emanating  from  the 
ministers  of  the  crown.  The  right  of  the 
House  to  be  consulted  on  every  proposition  of 
law  was  finally  settled  in  1689.  It  soon  there- 
after became  evident  that  the  king  could  obtain 
the  necessary  assent  of  Parliament  to  the  meas- 
ure he  desired  only  by  appointing  ministers 
agreeable  to  the  majority  of  the  House.  From 
this  situation  developed  the  present  system  of 


LEGISLATURES  75 

government  by  responsible  ministers,  by  which 
the  men  who  are  the  natural  leaders  of  the  ma- 
jority party  in  the  House  of  Commons  consti- 
tute the  cabinet,  and  at  once  administer  the  ex- 
ecutive department  of  the  government  and 
initiate  all  important  legislation.  They  are 
subjected  to  the  questions  and  criticisms  of  the 
members,  and  their  measures  must  stand  the 
fire  of  debate.  If  the  majority  of  the  House 
votes  down  a  cabinet  minister's  proposal,  the 
cabinet  resigns,  and  a  new  one  is  formed  from 
the  majority  in  the  House.  The  fact  that  the 
question,  *'Who  shall  govern  England?"  is  to 
be  answered  by  the  adverse  or  favorable  vote 
on  each  bill  makes  the  debate  on  measures  a 
matter  of  more  importance  than  can  usually  be 
the  case  in  this  country.  Debate  in  the  English 
House  of  Commons  has  been  notably  free,  and 
there  has  been  an  abundant  opportunity  for 
men  of  talent  to  distinguish  themselves  in  it 
and  thereby  to  win  places  in  the  cabinet.  The 
fact  that  this  is  possible  attracts  the  best  brains 
in  England  into  the  House  of  Commons.  Of 
late  years,  of  course,  there  have  been  placed 
upon  the  freedom  of  debate  certain  limitations, 
but  the  personnel  of  the  House  of  Commons  re- 
mains notably  high;  higher  than  that  of  any 
legislative  body  in  the  history  of  the  world 
with  the  possible  exception  of  the  Roman  Sen- 


76  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

ate  in  its  palmiest  days,  or  of  our  own  Senate 
in  its  brief  period  of  glory  from  1830  to  1850. 
Its  legislative  product,  being  determined  by 
men  whose  political  life  and  death  depend  upon 
the  character  of  what  they  recommend,  is  su- 
perior to  that  of  practically  every  legislature. 
When  our  state  governments  were  formed, 
the  English  system  of  responsible  ministry  was 
not  thought  of.  Few  Americans  even  knew 
that  it  existed  in  England.  There  were  ap- 
parently none  of  the  materials  out  of  which 
to  construct  such  a  system  in  this  country. 
The  matter  of  introducing  bills  in  the  legisla- 
ture was  left  to  the  individual  members,  each 
being  on  an  equal  footing  with  every  other.  It 
early  became  manifest  that  the  number  of  bills 
introduced  was  too  large  to  be  dealt  with  by 
the  House  as  a  whole :  that  there  must  be  some 
division  of  labor.  The  method  adopted  was 
the  appointment  of  committees,  each  dealing 
with  bills  on  a  particular  subject  matter,  sifting 
from  them  those  that  had  merit  and  reporting 
them  again  to  the  House.  Even  a  system  of 
division  into  committees,  however,  has  failed 
in  Congress  and  in  some  of  the  larger  state 
legislatures  to  reduce  sufficiently  the  num- 
ber of  measures.  There  are  introduced  dur- 
ing the  two  years'  life  of  a  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives over  thirty  thousand  bills  and  resolu- 


LEGISLATURES  77 

tions.  If  each  member  spoke  one  minute  on 
each  bill,  the  session  would  last  between  eighty 
and  ninety  years.^  Of  course  most  of  these 
bills  fail  to  pass  through  the  meshes  of  the 
committee  nets.  However,  enough  do  pass 
through  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  House, 
as  a  whole,  to  deal  with  them  all.  Toward  the 
close  of  the  session,  especially,  the  lists,  or  cal- 
endars, upon  which  bills  are  placed  in  the  order 
of  their  report  from  committee  become  so  long 
that  it  is  impossible  to  get  through  them. 
There  has  to  be  some  means  of  reaching  down 
into  the  calendar  and  getting  out  those  meas- 
ures which  are  of  special  importance  and  bring- 

1  In  the   61st  Congress  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  was 
obliged  to  deal  with  the  following  measures: 

House  Bills 33,015 

House  Resolutions 1,008 

House  Joint  Resolutions 295 

House  Concurrent  Resolutions 65 

Senate  Bills    691 

Senate   Joint   Resolutions 51 

Senate  Concurrent  Resolutions 29 

Total 35,154 

For  their  consideration  the  House  was  in  session  from 
March  15  to  August  5,  1909;  from  December  6,  1909,  to  June 
23,  1910;  and  from  December  5,  1910,  to  March  3,  1911.  De- 
duction must  be  made  for  two  weeks'  vacation  at  Christmas. 
The  total  is  about  thirteen  months.  The  first  or  special  ses- 
sion was  entirely  taken  up  with  the  tariff,  and  only  eight 
bills  were  passed.  There  were  thus  about  eight  and  one-half 
months  for  the  remaining  33,007  bills.  The  conservative  char- 
acter of  the  statement  in  the  text  is  obvious. 


78  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

ing  them  before  the  House.  This  has  been  for 
many  years  the  function  of  the  Rules  Commit- 
tee, and  is  the  source  of  its  power.  Being  able 
to  report  at  any  time  a  resolution  for  the  sus- 
pension of  the  rules  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
sidering a  particular  measure  or  list  of  meas- 
ures, it  could  control  the  proceedings  of  the 
House.  ,Up  to  the  changes  made  in  the  session 
of  1310,  all  the  committees  of  the  House,  in- 
cluding the  Rules  Committee,  were  appointed  by 
the  Speaker.  He  was  himself  a  member  of 
the  Rules  Committee,  w^ith  two  other  trusted 
lieutenants  of  his  own  party,  and  two  members 
of  the  minority,  who,  for  practical  purposes, 
might  just  as  well  not  have  been  on  the  com- 
mittee. Since  the  fate  of  most  bills  was  de- 
cided by  a  committee,  and  the  fate  of  a  great 
many  others  by  the  Rules  Committee,  it  was 
obvious  that  the  power  of  the  man  who  ap- 
pointed these  committees  was  enormous.  A 
measure  once  recommended  by  the  Rules  Com- 
mittee was  almost  sure  of  passage.  The  House 
of  Representatives  is  so  large,  its  business  so 
prodigious,  that  there  is  little  time  or  oppor- 
tunity for  the  members  to  engage  in  a  discus- 
sion of  bills  on  the  floor.  A  great  deal  is  said 
and  printed  in  the  *' Congressional  Record,"  but 
to  very  little  purpose.    The  real  work  is  the 


LEGISLATURES  79 

work  of  the  committees,  and  tlie  Committee  on 
Kules  was  the  King  of  Committees. 

It  is  clear  that  the  function  of  selecting  the 
measures  to  be  actually  considered  by  the 
House,  which  in  England  belongs  to  the  re- 
sponsible members  of  the  cabinet,  in  this  coun- 
tiy  belonged,  prior  to  1910,  to  the  Speaker  and 
the  Eules  Committee.  These  men,  nominally 
the  sei^ants  of  the  House,  were  really  its  mas- 
ters. The  young  member  arriving  from  the 
country,  full  of  enthusiasm,  soon  found  that  his 
only  chance  of  getting  through  a  measure  which 
his  constituents  desired  was  by  doing  the  will 
of  the  Speaker  and  his  fellows  on  the  Rules 
Committee.  Now,  the  power  to  determine  what 
measures  the  House  of  Representatives  shall 
consider  must  devolve  on  some  one.  Like  every 
other  considerable  body,  it  is  incapable  of  in- 
dependent volition.  It  must  have  leadership. 
It  differed  from  the  British  House  of  Commons 
in  this — that  the  leadership  in  the  House  of 
Commons  is  responsible  leadership,  while  the 
leadership  in  our  House  of  Representatives  was 
irresponsible.  If  the  Speaker's  measures  were 
defeated,  he  did  not  resign.  If  they  were 
passed  and  turned  out  to  be  bad  measures, 
there  was  no  way  of  holding  him  responsible 
for  what  had  taken  place.    In  his  own  district 


80  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

he  was  popular  because  his  position  as  Speaker 
enabled  him  to  retrieve  more  local  plunder  than 
any  other  member  could  obtain  in  his  place,  and 
no  Siuccessful  effort  could  be  made  to  hold 
other  members  responsible  in  their  districts 
for  what  the  Speaker  had  done.  In  England, 
just  the  contrary  situation  prevailed.  Every 
member  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  elected 
because  he  is  a  supporter  of  a  particular  pos- 
sible prime  minister.  In  this  way,  prime  minis- 
ters become  responsible,  through  the  members 
of  Parliament,  to  the  people.  In  our  system, 
the  Speaker,  controlling  as  he  did  the  fortunes 
of  members  of  the  House,  was  apparently  re- 
sponsible only  to  himself.  Power  without  re- 
sponsibility is  almost  invariably  abused,  and 
the  Speaker  and  the  Rules  Committee  had 
power  without  responsibility. 

In  the  spring  of  1909  there  broke  out  an  open 
revolt  against  Speaker  Cannon,  and  early  in 
1910  this  took  the  form  of  a  set  of  amendments 
to  the  rules  by  which  the  Speaker  was  deprived 
of  the  power  of  appointing  the  members  of 
the  Rules  Committee,  and  was  himself  pro- 
hibited from  being  a  member  of  the  committee. 
The  power  formerly  possessed  by  the  Speaker 
was  transferred  to  the  House  itself.  In  the 
fall  elections  of  1910  the  question  of  ''Cannon- 
ism"  was  an  issue  in  many  of  the  congressional 


LEGISLATURES  81 

districts,  and  did  no  little  to  assist  the  Demo- 
cratic party  to  win  a  majority  in  Congress. 
This  Democratic  majority  still  further  tied  the 
hands  of  the  Speaker  by  handing  over  the  choice 
of  committees  to  the  House,  a  thing  which  in 
practice  meant  that  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee was  selected  in  the  first  instance  by 
the  party  caucuses  and  then  by  the  House,  while 
all  other  committees  were  selected  by  this  first 
chosen  committee.  There  has  been  much  dis- 
cussion of  the  effect  of  these  amendments  of 
the  rules  upon  the  procedure  of  Congress. 
There  has  been  little  external  evidence  of  any 
alteration  in  the  position  of  the  Speaker  other 
than  that  given  by  the  rules  themselves. 
Speaker  Clark,  while  differing  in  personality 
from  Speaker  Cannon,  and  while  being  the 
choice  of  a  nominally  different  political  party, 
is  a  representative  of  the  same  political  group 
from  which  Cannon  was  drawn.  The  chair- 
manships of  committees  were  handed  over  to 
the  senior  Democratic  member  of  each  commit- 
tee, and  apparently  few  changes  in  the  per- 
sonnel of  these  committees  were  made.  The 
result  is  that  the  control  of  Congress  has  re- 
mained in  the  hands  of  the  same  people,  at 
least  in  the  hands  of  some  of  the  same  people, 
w^ho  controlled  it  prior  to  1910.  The  power  of 
the  Speaker  has  been  greatly  diminished,  al- 


82  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

though  not  destroyed.  A  man  strong  enough 
to  secure  the  nomination  of  the  party  caucus  as 
Speaker  will,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  ex- 
ercise great  influence  in  the  selection  of  com- 
mittees and  in  the  other  operations  of  the  great 
party  machine.  The  majority  floor-leader, 
however,  has  proved  to  equal  if  not  to  surpass 
the  Speaker  in  importance.  His  position  as 
chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee 
gives  him  the  choice  strategic  position.  In  one 
respect,  the  change  of  the  rules  will  be  produc- 
tive of  anything  but  good.  We  were  just  be- 
coming thoroughly  aware  of  the  extent  of  the 
Speaker's  power,  and  willing  to  apply  the 
rather  obvious  remedy  of  holding  the  members 
of  Congress  responsible  for  the  conduct  of  the 
Speaker  of  their  choice ;  in  other  words,  w^e  were 
beginning  to  evolve  something  approaching  re- 
sponsible leadership  for  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. Every  one  recognizes  that  the 
power  fonnerly  exercised  by  the  Speaker  and 
the  Rules  Committee  is  necessary  to  the  con- 
duct of  business.  There  was  really  on  the  part 
of  the  members  of  Congress  and  the  people  no 
quarrel  with  the  power  of  the  Speaker,  but  only 
with  the  way  in  which  the  particular  Speaker 
exercised  it.  As  often  happens  in  such  cases, 
however,  they  went  at  Speaker  Cannon  by  at- 
tacking his  power.    It  would  have  been  much 


LEGISLATURES  83 

better  if  there  could  have  been  devised  and  ap- 
plied some  method  of  retaining  the  power, 
trusteed  for  the  benefit  of  the  people.  It  will 
be  a  long  time  before  the  people  come  to  recog- 
nize the  responsibility  of  the  new  Rules  Com- 
mittee or  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee 
and  its  floor-leader  chairman.  We  will  have  to 
adjust  our  minds  to  a  whole  new  series  of 
political  ideas,  and  that,  for  a  population  of 
ninety  millions,  is  a  slow  process. 

Our  state  legislatures  are  but  miniature  rep- 
resentations of  Congress.  Ordinarily,  the 
presiding  ofiicer  of  the  lower  house  does  not 
possess  so  much  power,  relatively,  as  the 
Speaker  of  the  National  House  of  Representa- 
tives; a  greater  amount  being  reposed  in  the 
important  committee  chairmen.  On  the  whole, 
however,  every  criticism  which  applies  to  the 
organization  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
applies  to  the  organization  of  both  the  houses 
of  the  state  legislatures.  One  of  the  most  ob- 
vious results  of  this  system  in  State  and  nation 
is  to  make  a  legislative  career  unattractive.  It 
is  in  committees  that  the  real  work  is  done. 
Bills  that  are  once  reported  from  the  com- 
mittees stand,  if  they  can  come  to  a  vote,  an 
excellent  chance  of  passage.  Indeed,  in  most 
of  our  legislative  bodies,  bills  receive  very  little 
consideration  upon  the  floor.    It  is  not  meant 


84  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

by  tliis  that  no  speeches  are  indulged  in,  for 
there  is  much  talk  at  every  stage  of  legislative 
business,  but  any  one  who  is  at  all  familiar 
with  the  character  of  debate  in  legislative 
bodies  knows  that  these  speeches  have  not, 
and  are  not  expected  to  have,  any  appreciable 
effect  upon  the  decision  of  the  question.  They 
are  usually  uttered  for  the  purpose  of  making 
a  record,  of  appealing  to  one's  constituents,  or 
of  laying  the  foundation  for  future  political  ac- 
tivity. They  are  simply  moves  in  the  game 
of  politics.  The  real  discussion  of  measures 
takes  place  in  the  committees.  Committee 
work  is  laborious  and  carries  with  it  anything 
but  glory.  The  work  of  committees  attracts 
little  attention  and  is  given  only  a  modicum  of 
publicity.  A  large  part  of  the  work  of  the 
committeemen  is  very  similar,  as  Godkin  says, 
to  that  of  college  professors  in  correcting 
Freshman  themes,  eliminating  mistakes,  and 
discarding  absurd  propositions.  For  success 
in  committee  work,  the  qualities  most  needed 
are  patience,  adroitness  and  experience;  quali- 
ties which  are  by  no  means  uncommon  among 
American  politicians.  There  is  little  scope  for 
the  broader  ability  of  the  orator,  the  philoso- 
pher or  the  statesman.  A  glance  at  the  per- 
sonnel of  any  of  our  legislative  bodies,  except, 
perhaps,  the  United  States  Senate,  will  con- 


LEGISLATURES  85 

vince  any  honest  observer  that  a  mediocre  man 
can  reach  the  highest  point  of  authority  sim- 
ply by  being  reelected  repeatedly  to  the  body. 
There  is  not  a  prominent  leader  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  who  has  not  served  term 
after  term,  and  there  are  few  of  them  who  are 
anything  more  than  patient,  adroit  and  experi- 
enced mediocrities.  Really  keen  men  do  not 
seek  election  to  legislative  bodies.  There  is 
nothing  in  legislative  service  to  attract  them. 
They  can  find  in  the  law  or  in  business  a 
better  scope  for  their  activity,  a  better  chance 
to  make  a  name  for  themselves;  and  when  it 
comes  to  the  choice  of  the  more  important  elec- 
tive officers,  such  as  Governor,  United  States 
Senator,  or  President,  these  men  who  have  won 
their  spurs  outside  of  the  legislature  seem  to 
suffer  no  handicap — even  to  possess  an  advan- 
tage in  the  race. 

The  members  of  the  average  American  legis- 
lature can  be  divided  into  three  classes:  first, 
and  largest,  a  body  of  well  meaning  men  of 
meager  ability,  usually  fairly  well  along  in  life, 
very  frequently  men  who  have  made  a  success 
to  a  moderate  extent  in  business  and  who  come 
to  the  state  legislature  or  to  Congress  because 
the  honor  of  an  election  appeals  to  them;  sec- 
ond, a  small  group  of  experienced,  long-headed, 
wily  politicians,  old,  usually  in  years,  but  al- 


86  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

ways  in  experience.  These  men  find  it  easy 
to  rule  and  manage  the  mass  of  well-meaning 
persons  of  which  we  have  spoken.  It  is  almost 
impossible  to  define  what  they  do  except  by  em- 
ploying that  very  expressive  Americanism, 
''slip  it  over";  third,  a  small  group  of  men, 
usually  young  both  in  years  and  experience, 
frequently  members  of  the  legal  profession,  in 
their  briefless  stage,  who  bring  to  the  legisla- 
ture considerable  ability,  courage  and  right- 
eousness of  motive.  They  battle  with  the  sec- 
ond class  for  the  control  of  the  first.  They  only 
occasionally  control  the  situation,  but  they  at 
all  times  operate  as  a  check  upon  the  rapacious 
audacity  of  the  second  class.  It  is  one  of  the 
saddest  phases  of  legislative  life  that  the  best 
citizens  from  the  small  towns — the  retired  mer- 
chant or  banker — make^  the  most  pitiable  type 
of  legislator.  They  are  as  much  out  of  place 
as  a  horse  in  a  garage.  They  are  opinionated, 
self-satisfied  and  easily  fooled.  They  are  easy 
marks  for  the  lobbyist  and  the  experienced 
manipulator.  A  constituency  takes  less  chance 
with  a  thorough  crook,  kno^vn  and  watched  as 
such,  than  with  one  of  these  "first  citizens." 

It  is  legislatures  thus  constituted  which  have 
employed  those  numerous  deceptive  tactics  that 
have  disgusted  the  people  and  have  brought 
about  our  numerous  constitutional  restrictions 


LEGISLATURES  87 

upon  their  activity.  It  used  to  be  a  favorite 
trick  to  place  a  misleading  title  on  a  bill ;  a  title 
innocent  in  itself  but  quite  misrepresentative  of 
the  measure  appearing  below.  This  was  par- 
ticularly tlie  case  before  it  became  the  custom 
to  print  all  bills.  There  was  one  famous  in- 
stance in  a  State  of  the  Middle  West,  in  which 
a  bill  was  introduced  regulating  the  running- 
at-large  of  cattle  in  one  of  the  older  and  more 
settled  counties  of  the  State.  It  was  a  very 
long  measure  and  it  was  expected,  as  a  local 
measure,  to  go  through  upon  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  member  from  that  county.  One  of 
the  other  members,  however,  became  distrust- 
ful of  the  purpose  of  this  bill,  and  insisted,  as 
was  his  constitutional  right,  on  the  bill  being 
read  in  full.  It  was  read  amidst  the  protests 
and  jeers  of  practically  the  whole  body.  The 
feeling,  however,  changed  considerably  when 
it  was  discovered  that  in  the  very  middle  of 
the  bill  was  a  clause  giving  the  introducer  an 
absolute  divorce  from  his  wife.  All  this  has 
now  been  stopped  by  prohibiting  measures  from 
containing  more  than  one  subject,  and  requir- 
ing that  the  title  be  descriptive  of  the  matter 
contained. 

Another  device  was  that  of  introducing  a  bill 
at  the  very  close  of  the  session  and  rushing  it 
through  at  a  time  when  no  one  was  in  position 


88  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

to  give  it  consideration.  A  variation  upon  this 
practice  was  to  introduce  a  measure  doing  a  par- 
ticular thing  of  an  unobjectionable  sort,  and 
then,  at  a  late  hour  of  the  session,  and  with  as 
little  furore  as  possible,  to  get  it  reported  from 
committee  with  an  amendment  entirely  chang- 
ing its  effect.  The  matter  of  late  introduction 
has  now  been  generally  cared  for  by  limiting 
the  period  within  which  bills  may  be  introduced 
to  a  specific  number  of  days,  but  the  trick  of 
late  amendment  is  still  available  in  most  juris- 
dictions. Perhaps  the  worst  of  legislative 
tricks  was  that  of  passing  measures  by  unani- 
mous consent.  You  could  do  anything  by 
unanimous  consent  of  the  legislature  except 
amend  the  constitution.  You  could  suspend  any 
of  the  rules  of  the  legislature  itself,  and  pass 
bills  in  every  imaginable  kind  of  hurry.  At 
the  same  time,  procedure  under  unanimous  con- 
sent possessed  the  great  advantage  of  not  put- 
ting anybody  on  record.  Of  course,  every  mem- 
ber was  nominally  recorded  in  favor  of  the  bill, 
but  he  was  always  able  to  save  himself  before 
his  constituents  by  saying  there  was  no  opposi- 
tion— the  bill  passed  by  unanimous  consent. 
Our  constitutions  nowadays  provide  that  bills 
must  be  read  upon  three  separate  days  and  be 
in  their  final  printed  form  for  a  specified  time 
before  passage.    This  blocks  the  use  of  unani- 


LEGISLATURES  89 

mous  consent  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  all 
consideration,  but  the  abuse  of  unanimous  con- 
sent still  remains  considerable. 

A  very  striking  example  of  the  recent  use  of 
these  legislative  devices  came  under  the  per- 
sonal observation  of  the  writer  in  the  session 
of  the  New  York  legislature  of  1905.  Just 
a  few  days  before  the  end  of  the  session,  a 
bill  was  introduced  providing  that  hotels  of 
over  two  hundred  rooms  might  sell  intoxicating 
liquors  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  were  within 
two  hundred  feet  of  a  church  or  school,  within 
which  limits  the  sale  was  at  the  time  prohibited 
by  law.  The  bill  was  advanced  through  vari- 
ous stages  and  passed  the  Senate  without  a 
vote  in  opposition.  It  passed  the  Assembly, 
being  reported  by  the  Rules  Committee  and 
put  through  all  its  various  stages  there  with 
marvelous  quickness.  It  developed  that  it  was 
intended  to  permit  the  Gotham  Hotel,  just 
across  55th  Street  from  the  Fifth  Avenue  Pres- 
byterian Church,  to  sell  liquor.  The  measure 
had  behind  it  the  personal  influence  of  United 
States  Senator  Thomas  C.  Piatt.  It  was 
vetoed  by  Governor  Higgins.  Next  year  a 
measure  was  introduced  by  Senator  Brackett  of 
Saratoga  extending  the  two  hundred  feet  pro- 
hibition to  public  libraries  as  well  as  churches 
and  schools.    Along  toward  the  end  of  the  ses- 


90  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

sion  this  bill  was  reported  from  the  committee 
with  an  amendment  which  was  not  at  all  noted 
by  the  press,  exempting  from  the  whole  pro- 
vision hotels  in  existence  on  the  first  day  of 
January  of  the  year  preceding.  This  bill  had 
passed  the  Senate  and  was  nearly  through  the 
Assembly  before  the  change  was  discovered. 
It  was  then  too  late  to  organize  opposition  to 
it.  It  was,  however,  vetoed  by  Governor  Hig- 
gins.  The  following  year  a  bill  was  introduced, 
this  time  by  a  member  of  the  assembly,  from 
Brooklyn,  excepting  from  the  operation  of  the 
two-hundred-foot  provision  all  churches  any 
part  of  whose  property  was  used  for  business 
purposes.  It  was  claimed  that  this  was  to  af- 
fect a  situation  in  Brooklyn,  but  investigation 
showed  that  the  Fifth  Avenue  Presbyterian 
Church  owned  a  dwelling  house  immediately 
adjoining  the  church  on  Fifth  Avenue  which 
was  leased  to  an  art  store.  This  bill  again 
passed  the  Senate  without  serious  opposition, 
but  in  the  Assembly  an  earnest  fight  on  it  was 
feared  and  its  sponsors  endeavored  to  execute 
a  clever  flank  movement.  They  brought  the  bill 
up  on  Friday.  On  Friday  most  of  the  members 
of  the  New  York  legislature  go  home.  All 
business  is  transacted  by  unanimous  consent, 
and  the  few  of  the  old  guard  who  hang  about 
have  so  many  little  jobs  of  their  own  which  they 


LEGISLATURES  91 

want  to  put  tlirougli  that  they  seldom  have  the 
heart  to  say  anything  against  anybody  else's 
little  job.  Legislators  show  a  great  amount  of 
charity  in  their  dealings  with  one  another — a 
high  degree  of  "Christian"  virtue.  The  bill 
would  have  passed  on  this  occasion  had  it  not 
been  for  the  unexpected  presence  and  still  more 
unexpected  opposition  of  one  of  the  younger 
members.  The  bill  did  finally  pass  after  a  bit- 
ter fight  and  was  again  vetoed  by  Governor 
Hughes.  This  is  a  very  good  sample  of  the 
arts  and  devices  of  which  skilled  legislators  are 
capable,  as  well  as  of  the  power  and  influence 
of  a  politician  even  at  that  time  supposedly 
discredited  with  the  people  of  his  State. 

Back  of  it  all,  however,  lies  the  responsibility 
of  the  people  themselves.  They  are  careless  in 
their  choice  of  representatives.  They  demand 
practically  nothing  of  them  except  that  they  dip 
deep  into  the  pork  barrel  for  the  benefit  of  the 
district.  The  writer  requested  one  of  his  stu- 
dents to  address  a  letter  to  each  of  the  eight 
Congressmen  from  California  asking  them 
whether  their  constituents  had  more  interest 
in  local  appropriations  or  in  the  attitude  of 
their  representatives  upon  national  issues. 
Seven  of  the  Congressmen  who  replied  to  this 
very  frankly  admitted  that  their  people  cared 
nothing  as  to  their  attitude  on  national  issues 


92  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

provided  they  brouglit  home  the  necessary  ap- 
propriations.    The  eighth,  who  declared  quite 
curtly  that  the  people  of  his  district  were  more 
interested  in  national  issues,  apparently  told 
the  truth  for  he  was  defeated  for  renomination 
in  1910  in  a  campaign  in  which  he  based  his 
claim  to  the  consideration  of  the  voters  upon 
what  he  had  been  able  to  do  for  the  district. 
This,  however,  is  the  exception  which  proves 
the  rule.     There  is  no  royal  road  to  good  gov- 
ernment.    It  can  be  secured  only  by  the  eter- 
nal vigilance  of  the  individual  citizen.     Each 
must  be  persistently  and  intelligently  active  in 
politics,  not  in  the  sense  of  being  a  candidate 
for  office,  but  in  that  of  constant  watchfulness 
and  criticism  of  the  men  chosen  to  represent 
him.     Proper  attention  by  each  citizen  to  this 
matter  will  abolish  the  pork  barrel,  wipe  out 
legislative  chicanery,  give  us  legislators  of  high 
character  and  good   ability,  and  restore   our 
legislatures  to  the  position  which  they  ought  to 
hold.     The  powers  which  are  exercised  by  our 
state  legislators   are  the  most  important  ex- 
ercised by  any  agency  in  our  governmental  sys- 
tem.    They  include  the  whole  realm  of  private 
and  criminal  law — practically  everything  which 
has  to  do  with  the  relations  of  individuals  to 
one     another    and     to     society.     Legislatures 
ought  to  be  bodies  of  first  importance,  not  only 


LEGISLATURES  93 

in  respect  of  the  powers  tliey  may  exercise  but 
in  respect  of  the  persons  who  exercise  them,  as 
well.  The  only  way  to  this  is  through  the  peo- 
ple. That  this  problem  of  our  American  life 
will  be  met,  there  are  many  signs.  Popular 
indifference  is  being  in  a  large  measure  over- 
come. The  people  today  are  more  interested 
in  our  government  than  they  have  ever  been, 
and  there  is  eveiy  reason  to  believe  that  they 
will  make  it  really  ours.  There  are  some  who 
profess  to  see  in  the  failure  of  our  American 
legislatures  arguments  against  democracy.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  history  of  our 
legislatures  points  in  the  opposite  direction. 
Their  misdoings  prove  that  we  have  had  too  lit- 
tle democracy,  not  too  much.  By  reason  of  the 
failure  to  evolve  a  system  of  legislative  re- 
sponsibility the  people — the  Demos — have 
never  had  a  chance  to  rule.  These  defects  in 
machinery  are  being  corrected.  The  people  are 
becoming  actively  aware  of  their  duty.  As  in 
every  great  crisis  in  American  life,  the  unspent 
brain  of  the  American  people  is  extending  it- 
self to  meet  every  demand  of  the  situation. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Beard,  C.  A.,  "American  Government  and  Politics," 
pp.  267-293,  516-546;  "Readings  in  American 
Government  and  Politics,"  pp.  457-487, 


94  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

Bryce,  James,  "The  American  Commonwealth," 
chapters  X,  XIX,  XL,  XLII,  LXXVI,  LXXXVII. 

FoLLETT,  M.  P.,  ' '  The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. ' ' 

Ford,  H.  J.,  "The  Rise  and  Growth  of  American 
Politics,"  pp.  188-196,  216-293. 

Fuller,  H.  B.,  "Speakers  of  the  House." 

GoDKiN,  E.  L.,  "Unforeseen  Tendencies  of  Democ- 
racy." (Especially,  "The  Decline  of  Legisla- 
tures.") 

Lowell,  A.  Lawrence,  "Government  of  England," 
vol.  I  (gives  the  contrasting  English  system). 

McCall,  S.  W.,  "The  Business  of  Congress." 

McConnachie,  L.  G,  "Congressional  Committees." 

Ray,  p.  0.,  "An  Introduction  to  Political  Parties  and 
Practical  Politics,"  pp.  390  et  seq. 

Reinsch,  p.  S.,  "American  Legislatures  and  Legisla- 
tive Methods";  "Readings  on  American  State 
Government,"  pp.  41  et  seq. 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  "Congressional  Government." 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  LONG  BALLOT  AS  A  CAUSE  OF  POLITICAL 
CORRUPTION 

Students  of  politics  in  the  United  States  have 
known  for  a  long  time  that  our  ballot  was  too 
long.  Comments  have  been  made  from  time  to 
time  upon  the  impossible  burden  of  determining 
the  merits  of  numerous  candidates  for  a  multi- 
tude of  positions  and  upon  the  confusion  of 
state  and  city  administration  produced  by  elect- 
ing one  man  to  be  the  nominal  chief  of  the  ad- 
ministration while,  at  the  same  time  electing 
several  others,  not  necessarily  in  sympathy  with 
the  first,  to  conduct  many  of  its  most  important 
branches.  Any  thinking  man  who  has  ever  cast 
a  ballot  in  state  or  city  elections  knows  of  the 
feeling  of  helplessness  with  which  he  faces  the 
problem  of  discriminating  between  the  candi- 
dates for  the  various  minor  offices.  Such  cir- 
cumstances as  the  New  York  State  election  of 
1908,  in  which  Governor  Hughes,  really  chosen 
by  the  people  because  of  his  high  character  and 
splendid  boss-free  record,  was  accompanied  into 


96  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

office  by  a  crew  of  state  politicians  selected  by 
the  very  men  against  whom  lie  had  made  that 
record,  have  set  people  to  thinking  of  the  folly 
of  a  divided  responsibility  in  state  government. 
Of  late  we  have  had  a  Short  Ballot  Organiza- 
tion, including  among  its  officers  and  members 
some  of  the  most  distinguished  public  men  in 
the  United  States.  Statesmen  of  such  differ- 
ences of  opinion  on  other  subjects  as  Taft, 
Roosevelt  and  Wilson  agree  in  condemning  the 
long  ballot.  The  voter,  at  a  state  election  in 
California,  casts  his  ballot  for  some  forty  dif- 
ferent offices,  besides  the  important  one  of  Gov- 
ernor. In  New  York  City,  in  the  four  year 
cycle,  according  to  Mr.  Richard  S.  Childs,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Short  Ballot  Organization,  four 
hundred  offices  are  filled  by  the  vote  of  the 
people,  and  the  number  is  even  greater  in  Chi- 
cago and  Philadelphia.  Add  to  all  of  this  the 
increasingly  large  number  of  constitutional 
amendments,  bond  issues,  local  option,  initiative 
and  referendum  and  recall  jDropositions,  in 
connection  with  which  the  people  are  called 
upon  to  exercise  the  franchise,  and  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  we  have  placed  upon  our  citizens  a 
burden  too  heavy  to  bear.  No  man  who  does 
not  make  a  business  of  politics  can  vote  with 
genuine  intelligence  except  for  a  very  few  of 
the  most  important  officers. 


THE  LONG  BALLOT  97 

Tlie  long  ballot  does  not  exist  anywhere  else 
in  the  world.  The  voters  of  England,  France 
and  Prussia,  presumably  as  intelligent  as  those 
in  this  country,  are  not  called  upon  to  partici- 
pate in  any  such  tremendous  selective  process 
as  that  imposed  upon  our  people.  The  English 
voter  casts  his  ballot  for  a  member  of  Parlia- 
ment on  an  average  of  once  in  every  five  years. 
He  votes  for  one  member  of  the  borough  coun- 
cil every  year,  except  in  certain  of  the  smaller 
boroughs  which  are  not  divided  into  wards, 
where  he  may  have  to  vote  for  a  larger  number 
of  members  but  where  the  limited  size  of  the 
constituency  pretty  well  guarantees  that  all 
candidates  will  be  fairly  well  known  to  the  voter. 
He  also  casts  his  ballot  for  two  borough  audi- 
tors each  year,  whose  office  is  of  no  real  impor- 
tance— the  actual  auditing  of  accounts  being 
done  by  public  accountants  chosen  for  the  pur- 
pose. If  he  lives  in  a  city  of  less  than  fifty 
thousand  he  will  also  have  to  vote  for  a  member 
of  the  county  council  once  in  three  years  and, 
at  intervals,  for  a  member  of  the  Board  of 
Guardians.  All  this  is  on  the  supposition  that 
he  is  a  city  dweller.  If  he  lives  in  a  rural  por- 
tion of  the  country,  he  will  vote  for  a  member  of 
the  county  council  once  in  three  years  and  for 
rural  district  councilors  and  for  members  of  the 
parish  council  at  varying  intervals  and  in  vary- 


98  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

ing  numbers.^  The  French  voter  casts  his  bal- 
lot for  a  member  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
once  in  four  years ;  for  a  member  of  the  General 
Council  (of  the  Department)  every  six  years; 
for  a  member  of  the  Council  of  the  Arondisse- 
ment  every  six  years ;  and  for  four  or  five  mem- 
bers of  the  Communal  Council  every  four  years. 
In  the  smaller  cities  which  are  not  divided  into 
districts  for  the  purpose  of  electing  members 
of  the  Communal  Council  this  number  may  be 
larger.  The  Prussian  voter  casts  his  vote  for 
a  Member  of  the  Imperial  Reichstag  every  five 
years ;  for  a  member  of  the  Prussian  House  of 
Representatives  every  three  years ;  for  a  mem- 
ber of  the  city  assembly  every  year  if  he  is  rich 
and  every  three  years  if  he  is  poor.  If  he 
dwells  in  the  country  he  also  votes  for  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Circle  Diet  every  three  years. 
Briefly,  in  European  countries  the  ballot  is 
short. 

The  origin  of  the  American  system  is  to  be 

iTlie  number  of  members  of  Boards  of  Guardans,  District 
Councils,  and  Parish  Councils  are  determined  by  the  County- 
Council,  which  also  may  divide  parishes  into  wards  according 
to  the  purpose  of  the  particular  election.  This  makes  it  im- 
possible to  state  any  general  rule  with  regard  to  the  ballot- 
burden  of  the  people.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  in  such 
small  units  as  the  Rural  District  and  Parish,  in  which  every 
one  pretty  well  knows  every  one  else,  a  long  ballot  is  no  evil 
— vide  the  New  England  Town  where  the  annual  meeting  elects 
a  list  of  officers  of  portentous  length. 


THE  LONG  BALLOT  99 

found  in  the  great  democratic  movement  of 
1830  to  1850,  the  effect  of  which  on  party  or- 
ganization and  methods  of  nomination  to  office 
we  have  already  commented  upon.  It  so  hap- 
pened that  this  period  was  one  of  very  rapid 
expansion  of  the  social  and  economic,  and,  con- 
sequently, of  the  political  arrangements  of  our 
people.  Many  new  offices  had  to  be  created, 
and  some  means  had  to  be  found  of  selecting 
persons  to  fill  them.  The  original  state  consti- 
tutions had  given  the  appointment  of  the  few 
important  administrative  offices  required  under 
the  simple  conditions  of  the  time  to  the  legis- 
lature, or,  in  a  few  States,  to  the  governor. 
T]ie  method  of  appointment  by  the  legislature 
proved  to  be  unsatisfactory.  The  general 
causes  which  led  to  the  decline  of  the  legisla- 
ture led  to  its  dealing  with  the  places  within  its 
gift  in  a  spirit  of  jobbery  and  corruption.  At 
the  same  time  there  was  some  fear  of  entrusting 
to  the  governor  of  the  State  a  great  power  of 
appointment.  In  the  face  of  these  difficulties, 
what  was  more  natural  than  to  entrust  to  the 
people  themselves  the  task  of  choosing  these 
officers.  It  was  easy  to  assume  that  the  people 
would  be  best  represented  by  the  men  whom 
they  themselves  selected,  and,  in  the  belief  that 
they  were  doing  the  democratic  thing,  constitu- 
tion-makers and  amenders  provided  for  the  elec- 


100  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

tion  of  the  principal  state  officers  by  the  people. 
In  consequence,  the  average  American  State 
elects  not  only  a  governor  and  lieutenant-gov- 
ernor, but  also  a  controller  or  auditor,  a  treas- 
urer, an  attorney-general,  a  superintendent  of 
public  instruction,  a  surveyor-general  or  land 
registrar,  and,  in  some  States,  a  state  engineer. 
This  is  a  very  conservative  list,  as  in  practically 
every  State  there  are  other  elective  officers  more 
or  less  numerous  filling  a  great  variety  of  posi- 
tions. The  judges,  also,  who  under  most  of  the 
early  state  constitutions  were  elected  by  the 
legislature,  came  in  like  manner  to  be  elected 
by  the  people.  The  same  causes  operated  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  elective  officers  in  cities 
and  other  units  of  local  government.  The  only 
reason,  in  all  probability,  that  the  government 
of  the  United  States  was  not  aifected  in  the 
same  direction  was  the  extreme  difficulty  of 
amending  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
The  government  of  the  United  States,  therefore, 
stands  alone  among  our  numerous  community 
of  governments.  As  the  result  of  earlier  influ- 
ences it  is  highly  centralized,  the  number  of  offi- 
cers elected  very  small,  and,  while  the  long  bal- 
lot of  our  States  and  subdivisions  operates  to 
a  considerable  extent  to  deteriorate  the  person- 
nel of  the  House  of  Representatives,  that  is  not 
the  fault  of  our  national  Constitution. 


THE  LONG  BALLOT  101 

Altliongli  the  elective  principle  was  extended 
to  so  numerous  a  list  of  positions  in  the  name 
of  democracy,  the  long  ballot  has  turned  out  to 
be  anything  but  a  democratic  institution.  A 
fair  test  of  the  democratic  character  of  any  gov- 
ernmental device  may  be  presumed  to  be  the 
question — Does  it  or  does  it  not  bring  to  pass 
the  real  will  of  the  people  1  Asa  matter  of  fact, 
the  people  never  really  choose  the  minor  offi- 
cers for  whom  they  vote.  In  the  first  place  the 
citizen  does  not  have  an  opportunity  to  make 
an  intelligent  choice.  He  is  ignorant  of  the 
character  of  the  position  to  be  filled,  and  of  the 
qualifications  necessary  to  fill  it.  He  is  also  ig- 
norant of  the  extent  to  which  the  various  can- 
didates possess  these  or  any  other  qualifica- 
tions. They  are  simply  so  many  names  to  him. 
The  writer  has  made  it  a  practice  with  numer- 
ous audiences  to  ask  them  how  many  knew  the 
names  of  the  incumbents  of  each  of  the  elective 
state  offices  other  than  governor  and  lieutenant- 
governor.  This  is  a  more  than  fair  test, 
because  these  men  were  the  successful  candi- 
dates, and  may  be  presumed  to  have  gained 
some  notoriety  by  that  success.  They  have 
been  for  some  time  incumbents  of  the  places 
they  occupy,  a  fact  which  brings  them  into  con- 
tact with  considerable  numbers  of  people.  The 
replies  of  the  audiences  varied  from  total  ig- 


102  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

norance  to  about  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  knowl- 
edge. The  only  audience  the  writer  found  who 
anything  like  unanimously  knew  the  name  of  a 
state  officer  was  an  audience  of  about  two  hun- 
dred school  teachers  in  Los  Angeles,  practically 
all  of  whom  knew  the  name  of  the  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction.  The  voter  is 
also  confused  by  the  size  and  complicated  ar- 
rangement of  the  ballot.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, he  naturally  votes  his  party  ticket 
straight  on  the  assumption  that,  other  things 
being  equal,  the  men  nominated  by  his  party 
will  better  satisfy  him  than  the  men  nominated 
by  the  other  party.  This  is  what  President 
Eliot  says  he  does,  and  it  is  what  practically  all 
of  us  are  obliged  to  confess  that  we  do.  Of 
course,  being  ignorant,  the  voter  is  not  in  a  po- 
sition to  criticise  his  party's  choice  either  be- 
fore or  after  election.  Little  information  fil- 
ters through  the  press  concerning  these  minor 
offices,  and  the  voter  never  really  comes  to  know 
how  his  party  choice  fills  the  position.  Those 
exceptional  cases  in  which  some  startling  mal- 
feasance in  office  brings  one  of  them  into  a  sud- 
den and  unsavory  prominence,  go  to  prove  the 
rule.  Applying,  then,  our  democratic  test  to 
the  long  ballot,  we  cannot  escape  the  conclusion 
that,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  it  is  not  demo- 
cratic. 


THE  LONG  BALLOT  103 

We  still  might  have  ground  for  consolation 
if  by  a  means,  however  undemocratic,  the  offices 
were  well  filled.  The  political  machines,  how- 
ever, which  make  up  the  slates  of  candidates, 
have,  in  general,  filled  the  minor  places  badly. 
It  is  true  that  some  of  the  state  officers  are 
splendid  men,  and  that  the  great  majority  of 
them  are  passably  honest,  but  taken  by  and 
large  they  are  not  competent.  This  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at.  These  offices  not  being  sub- 
ject to  popular  criticism,  the  machines  and 
bosses  are  at  liberty  to  put  up  for  them  whom 
they  please.  They  choose  the  men  who  will  do 
their  bidding,  or  who  will  strengthen  their 
organization.  Now,  the  qualities  of  mind  which 
make  a  man  subservient  to  the  bosses  do 
not  generally  make  him  an  efficient  servant  of 
the  people.  Neither  is  ability  to  win  votes  by 
bar-front  or  demagogic  methods  always  syn- 
onymous with  real  administrative  ability.  We 
have,  then,  a  situation  in  which  these  numerous 
elective  offices  furnish  a  means  of  political  cor- 
iTiption,  and,  at  the  same  time,  give  the  State 
inefficient  servants.  The  introduction  of  the  di- 
rect primary  will  work  no  improvement.  The 
people  are  no  more  competent  at  the  direct  pri- 
mary to  discriminate  between  the  candidates 
for  these  minor  offices  than  they  are  at  the  elec- 
tion.   Indeed,  the  fact  that  they  have  to  go 


104  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

tlirougli  the  process  of  selection  twice  is  a  cause 
of  still  further  confusion  to  them.  In  conse- 
quence, the  men  who  jDrepare  the  pre-primary 
slate  are  in  at  least  the  same  position  as  the 
men  who  in  older  times  prepared  the  pre-elec- 
tion slate.  Add  to  these  evils  disorganization 
of  administration  by  entrusting  it  to  a  whole 
series  of  independently  elected  officers  who  are 
as  likely  to  hate  as  to  love  one  another,  a  con- 
sequence upon  which  we  shall  dwell  at  length 
hereafter,  and  we  have  a  situation  thoroughly 
discouraging  to  the  lover  of  good  government. 
There  is,  however,  light  ahead.  Our  Amer- 
ican cities,  which  Mr.  Bryce  said  a  few  years 
ago  were  the  one  conspicuous  failure  of  our 
governmental  system,  have  been  rapidly  throw- 
ing off  the  shackles  of  the  long  ballot.  The 
commission  form  of  government,  which  ob- 
tained its  great  forward  impetus  through  the 
success  of  the  Galveston  experiment,  is  the  short 
ballot  and  little  more.  The  reason  for  its  suc- 
cess is  its  simplicity.  For  the  first  time,  we 
have  a  form  of  government  in  American  cities 
that  is  so  simple  that  the  responsibility  for  good 
or  ill  conduct  in  any  city  or  department  clearly 
attaches  to  a  few  individuals.  The  ballot  is 
short.  In  Sacramento,  which  carries  the  plan 
to  the  extreme  limit,  the  people  choose  one  city 
councillor  a  year.    This  is  a  short  enough  bal- 


THE  LONG  BALLOT  105 

lot  to  suit  anybody,  and  if  the  people  of  Sacra- 
mento cannot  elect  a  good  city  councillor  once 
a  year  they  deserve  to  have  bad  government. 
California,  indeed,  is  taking  the  lead  in  the  di- 
rection of  the  short  ballot.  The  legislative  ses- 
sion of  1911  reduced  the  number  of  state  elec- 
tive officers  for  whom  each  voter  must  cast  his 
ballot,  by  three.  The  same  legislature  enacted 
a  freeholder  charter  plan  for  counties  which 
permits  them  to  make  the  usual  county  adminis- 
trative officers  appointive  by  the  board  of  su- 
pervisors. Los  Angeles  and  San  Bernardino 
Counties  have  already,  under  this  provision, 
framed  charters  on  the  short  ballot  principle. 
Old  Bishop  Berkeley  prophesied  that  westward 
the  course  of  empire  would  take  its  way.  Hav- 
ing flowed  west  to  the  apparently  impassable 
barrier  of  the  Pacific,  the  tide  of  human  prog- 
ress is  turning  back  upon  itself.  The  East  can 
learn  much  from  the  freedom-loving,  progres- 
sive West. 

It  would  not  do  to  leave  this  subject  without 
offering  for  the  reader's  consideration  a  sug- 
gested short  ballot  plan.     Here  it  is : 

First  year:  President  and  Vice-President 
for  four  years.  United  States  Senator  for  six 
years.  Member  of  the  House  of  Eepresenta- 
tives  for  two  years. 

Second    year:    Governor    for    four    years. 


106     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

Lieutenant-Governor  for  four  years.  State 
Senator  (in  half  of  districts)  for  four  years. 
Assemblyman  for  two  years. 

Third  year:  Member  of  House  of  Represent- 
atives for  two  years.  (A  United  States  Sena- 
tor in  this  or  fifth  year.) 

Fourth  year:  State  Senator  (in  half  the  dis- 
tricts) for  four  years.  Assemblyman  for  two 
years. 

SPRING  ELECTION 

Each  year:  City  Councilman  for  five  years 
or  Member  of  the  Township  Board  for  three 
years.  Member  of  the  County  Board  for  five 
years.  Member  of  the  School  Board  for  five 
years. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Beard,  C.  A.,  "The  Ballot's  Burden,"  in  Political 
Science  Quarterly,  vol.  XXIV,  pp.  589-614. 
"Digest  of  Short  Ballot  Charters." 

Bradford,  E.  S.,  "Commission  Government  in  Amer- 
ican Cities." 

Childs,  Richard  S.,  "Politics  without  Politicians," 
"The  Short  Ballot,"  "Short  Ballot  Principles." 
"The  Secret  of  the  Success  of  the  Commission 
Plan,"  in  Beard,  C.  A.,  "Digest  of  Short  Ballot 
Charters. ' ' 

Eliot,  C.  "W.,  "Better  Municipal  Government,"  in 
Beard,  C.  A.,  "Digest  of  Short  Ballot  Charters." 


THE  LONG  BALLOT  107 

Eliot,  C.  W.,  ''City  Government  by  Fewer  Men,"  in 

World's  Work,  vol.  XIV,  pp.  9419-26. 
Hamilton,  J.  J.,  "Dethronement  of  the  City  Boss." 
Woodruff,  Clinton  Rogers,  "City  Government  by 
Commission." 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   CORRUPTION    OF    POLITICS   BY   BIG   BUSINESS 

It  is  a  mistake  to  assume  that  corruption  in 
politics  is  ascribable  to  the  peculiar  bad-heart- 
edness  of  those  who  profit  by  it.  We  have  seen 
how  the  door  to  graft  is  conveniently  shaded 
by  the  complex  organization  of  our  government. 
The  cornipt  politician  is  merely  a  person  of  no 
more  than  average  conscience  whom  a  tempt- 
ing obscurity  invites  to  wrongdoing.  In  this 
chapter  we  are  to  consider  the  buying  end  of 
the  "business"  of  politics — the  motives  and 
methods  of  those  who  corrupt  politics  in  the  in- 
terest of  what,  in  another  aspect,  is  legitimate 
business. 

The  motive  is  privilege.  Our  governments, 
national,  state  and  local,  have  in  their  disposi- 
tion special  privileges  of  enormous  value.  They 
consist  in  part  of  positive  gifts,  in  part  of  ex- 
emptions from  the  burdens  that  others  bear. 
To  secure  or  maintain  these  benefactions  and 
immunities  is  the  motive  which  has  led  aggres- 
sive and  ambitious  big  business  to  debauch  our 
representatives.    To    rehearse    the    privileges 

108 


CORBUPTION  BY  BIG  BUSINESS     109 

which  have  been  sought  and  won  regardless  of 
the  interests  of  the  public  would  fill  a  book. 
Most  important  in  the  aggregate  value  of  the 
gifts  conferred  are  franchises — the  right  to  sup- 
ply public  services  for  private  profit  by  the  use 
of  the  streets  or  the  people's  right  of  eminent 
domain.  The  excessive  land  grants  in  alleged 
aid  of  railroad  building  were  the  most  signal 
and  dramatic  donations  to  private  enterprise  in 
the  history  of  our  countr}\  The  lending  of 
credit  to  railroad,  canal,  and  similar  companies 
by  state  and  local  governments  was  only  a  few 
years  ago  so  lavish  and  reckless  that  all  our 
newer  state  constitutions  forbid  it.  Water 
powers,  timber  lands,  and  mineral  lands  have 
been  pursued  more  persistently  than  was  ever 
the  Fountain  of  Youth.  And  the  story  of  the 
tariff  makes  the  longest  and  blackest  chapter  in 
the  whole  great  **book  of  jobs." 

Of  no  less  importance  to  business  interests 
is  freedom  from  restrictive  legislation.  Amer- 
ican legislators  have  not  been  above  introducing 
restrictive  measures  for  no  other  purpose  than 
to  be  bought  off.  A  few  years  ago  a  member 
introduced  into  the  legislature  of  one  of  our 
largest  States  a  bill  prohibiting  race  track  gam- 
bling. It  progressed  swimmingly  for  a  time. 
Then  its  introducer  lost  interest  in  it  and  it 
was  allowed  to  die.     The  next  year  he  built  a 


110  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

fine  house,  ostensibly  on  the  proceeds  of  a  coun- 
try law  practice  which  had  been  neglected  for 
the  small  salary  and  large  expenses  of  a  state 
senator.  This  type  of  legislation  is  known  as 
the  ''strike." 

More  frequently  our  legislative  bodies,  with 
the  very  best  intentions  in  the  world,  pass  meas- 
ures so  unscientific  and  so  destructive  of  the 
legitimate  interests  of  Capital  as  to  make  the 
use  of  any  means  of  prevention  seem  justifia- 
ble. On  the  other  hand,  it  is  true  that  many 
of  our  great  corporations  meet  with  the  same 
hostility  and  fight  with  the  same  ardor  the 
wisest  and  best-considered  measures  for  the 
protection  of  the  people.  When  a  powerful 
organization  has  been  created  for  the  purpose 
of  legitimate  self-protection,  there  is  a  well- 
nigh  irresistible  temptation  to  call  its  power 
into  exercise  for  illegitimate  purposes  if  occa- 
sion arises.  Big  business  also  has,  of  course, 
an  interest  in  a  lax  enforcement  of  the  laws 
limiting  its  activity.  It  therefore  seeks  to  con- 
trol the  administrative  departments  of  govern- 
ment, in  which  effort  it  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
greatly  aided  by  our  usual  long  ballot.  The 
characteristic  relation,  however,  between  big 
business  and  government,  is  the  relation  which 
it  sustains  to  the  law-making  body — the  legis- 
lature; and  it  is  upon  the  legislature  that  the 


CORRUPTION  BY  BIG  BUSINESS     111 

corrupting  influence  of  big  business  has  been 
most  potent. 

The  methods  of  this  control  have  undergone 
progressive  modifications.  The  old  method 
was  that  of  direct  action  upon  the  legislature 
itself.  This  involved  the  maintenance  of  a  fa- 
miliar institution,  the  ''lobby,"  consisting  of 
one  or  more  representatives  of  each  ''interest" 
concerned.  Popular  imagination  has  pictured 
them  as  haunting  the  halls  of  legislation.  They 
made  it  their  business,  quite  legitimately,  to 
keep  their  employers  in  touch  with  the  progress 
of  matters  in  the  legislature,  and  to  present 
their  views  to  committees  and  individual*^ 
They  became  familiar  also  with  the  charactc 
of  each  member  and  with  the  influences  thai 
might  be  brought  to  bear  upon  him.  So  far 
there  was  nothing  necessarily  evil  in  their  ac- 
tivities. No  more  complete  system  of  keeping 
track  of  members  of  a  legislature  was  ever  em- 
ployed than  that  used  by  the  women's  lobby 
which  passed  the  women's  suffrage  bill  through 
the  1913  session  of  the  Illinois  legislature. 
The  old  "lobbyists,"  however,  did  not  stop  at 
the  point  of  legitimate  argument  or  with  the 
use  of  the  pressure  of  public  opinion.  They 
had  recourse  to  any  and  all  means  to  control 
the  votes  of  the  members.  They  were  shrewd, 
rich  m  their  knowledge  of  human  nature,  and 


112  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

shameless  in  serving  the  interests  of  their  em- 
ployers, and  sometimes  more  than  incidentally 
their  own. 

Certain  lobbyists  belonged  to  the  regular 
navy  of  the  greater  interests.  Others  were 
pirate  craft  preying  right  and  left  on  the  cred- 
ulously avaricious  smaller  men  of  business.  So 
great  became  the  popular  reputation  of  the 
omnipresence  of  *' influence"  in  legislative  af- 
fairs, that  many  a  man  counting  himself  wise 
in  business,  corrupt  in  motive,  but  innocent  as 
a  child  in  the  apprehension  of  things  political, 
bought  at  a  high  price  an  *' influence"  which  did 
not  exist.  Vast  amounts  of  money  paid  to  lob- 
byists to  be  used  in  securing  votes  for  or  against 
measures  never  passed  out  of  their  hands. 

Those  were  the  times  of  high  living  among 
legislators,  and  if  a  member  could  be  swayed 
by  wining  and  dining,  or  by  pampering  his  ap- 
petite for  any  kind  of  vice,  the  lobbyist  took  ad- 
vantage of  his  weakness.  "When  the  passage  of 
an  Anti-Race  Track  Gambling  Bill  was  impend- 
ing in  one  of  our  state  legislatures,  a  promi- 
nent member  of  the  upper  house  was  engaged 
in  a  poker  game  by  race-track  men  and  so  in- 
dustriously plied  with  liquor  that  he  never  came 
to  his  senses  until  the  vote  had  been  taken.  In 
another  State  the  Librarian  of  the  State  Li- 
brary maintained  a  well-stocked  buffet  in  his 


CORRUPTION  BY  BIG  BUSINESS     113 

oflQce  at  which  thirsty  legislators  might  regale 
themselves.  A  kindly,  well-trained  man,  the 
Librarian  would  offer  to  new  members,  beside 
liquid  refreshment,  help  in  the  preparation  of 
speeches  and  the  drawing  of  bills.  It  was  not 
long  before  they  were  caught  in  the  invisible 
coils  of  obligation  and  delivered,  bound  hand 
and  foot,  to  a  great  corporation.  If  the  legis- 
lator was  susceptible  to  flattery,  he  was  flat- 
tered ;  if  he  was  susceptible  to  bribery,  he  was 
bribed.  It  was  part  of  the  lobbyists'  business 
to  know  the  price  of  men  and  never  to  overpay. 
If  a  man  could  not  be  influenced  by  the  direct 
use  of  money,  contributions  to  his  campaign 
fund  or  jobs  for  his  friends  in  the  service  of  a 
corporation  were  made  to  take  the  place  of  a 
positive  money  payment.  If  a  great  popular 
uprising  swept  over  the  country,  the  big  busi- 
ness interests  habitually  bent  to  the  storm. 
They  never  asked  their  friends  in  the  legisla- 
ture to  commit  political  suicide,  and  they  were 
always  willing  for  a  man  to  vote  against  them 
on  a  particular  question  if  it  were  clear  that  he 
must  do  so  in  order  to  retain  his  place  and  his 
opportunity  for  serving  them  in  their  other 
needs. 

The  days  of  wild  living  on  the  part  of  legis- 
lators have  pretty  well  gone  by,  probably  for- 
ever.   It  is  no  uncommon  thing  in  a  state  cap- 


114  GOVEENMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

ital  these  days  to  hear  the  bar-tenders  and  the 
dive-keepers  mourn  over  the  decline  of  legis- 
lative life.  The  modern  legislator  eats  pre- 
pared breakfast  food  and  drinks  buttermilk. 
He  haunts  the  cafeteria  rather  than  the  grill 
room.  The  corporations  still  maintain  repre- 
sentatives at  the  capital,  but  their  business  is 
more  particularly  to  watch  the  course  of  legis- 
lation and  warn  their  masters  of  what  is  to  fol- 
low. Almost  the  only  great  lobbies  of  the  pres- 
ent day  are  those  conducted  by  the  numerous 
reform  agencies.  Sometimes,  too,  the  amateur 
activities  of  some  city  council  or  chamber  of 
commerce  crowd  the  capital  with  buttonholing 
badge  wearers.  The  representatives  of  big 
business  are  conspicuous  by  their  absence  ex- 
cept, perhaps,  at  Washington.  There,  the  ex- 
traordinary stimulus  of  tariff  revision  will 
still  draw  out  an  old-time  gathering  of  the 
clans.  More  typical  is  the  case  of  a  great  finan- 
cial interest  in  the  State  of  California,  which 
to  present  certain  important  considerations  to 
the  legislature, — a  matter  which  in  past  times 
would  have  required  the  service  of  a  host  of 
attorneys  and  retainers, — sent  but  one  man  to 
Sacramento  who  merely  appeared  before  the 
committee  concerned,  and  left  immediately 
thereafter. 

The  outright  use  of  money  to  buy  a  legisla- 


CORRUPTION  BY  BIG  BUSINESS     115 

ture  or  a  city  council  is  becoming  an  exceptional 
practice  likewise ;  a  crude  relic  of  the  time  wlieu 
the  control  of  politics  was  not  thoroughly  un- 
derstood. In  these  days  big  business  still  con- 
trols legislative  action  and  by  the  use  of  means 
no  less  sinister  than  formerly.  It  works,  how- 
ever, through  ways  less  obvious  to  the  public. 
Its  control  is  now  secured  through  the  political 
organization  or  machine  upon  which  the  indi- 
vidual legislators  depend.  Big  business  enters 
into  close  alliance  with  the  boss.  Indeed,  it  is 
the  possibility  of  such  a  connection  with  big 
business  which  supplies  the  chief  incentive  to 
attain  bossship.  Even  where  the  element  of 
personal  corruption  is  less  evident  big  business 
secures  party  gratitude  by  campaign  contribu- 
tions. Note,  for  example,  Miss  Tarbell's  ex- 
planation of  the  influence  of  Mr.  William  Whit- 
man of  Boston  in  securing  the  infamous  Sched- 
ule K  of  the  tariff  of  1909 : 

"  'What  made  Mr.  Whitman  so  powerful?  Prob- 
ably we  shall  not  go  far  astray  if  we  assert  that  the 
real  reason  is  that  for  many  years  he  and  his  worsted 
friends  have  been  one  of  the  main  financial  reserves 
of  the  high  protection  wing  of  the  Republican  Party 
in  New  England,  and  that  in  return  they  have  got 
what  they  asked  for.  That  is  political  ethics — or 
etiquette.  Ever  since  1888,  it  has  been  a  settled  and 
openly  expressed  principle  in  political  circles  that 


116  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

your  protection  shall  be  in  proportion  to  your  cam- 
paign contribution.'  " 

Furthermore,  our  standards  of  business  and 
political  ethics  have  made  it  possible  for  men 
representing  big  business  in  their  own  persons 
to  become  the  bosses  of  great  States  without 
any  self-acknowledged  loss  of  personal  honor 
and  to  use  their  positions  to  benefit  themselves 
and  others  of  their  class.  The  individual  mem- 
ber of  the  legislature  under  this  system  rarely 
profits  financially  for  casting  a  corporation 
vote.  The  boss  may  profit  financially  or  polit- 
ically, but  he  does  not  divide  with  his  henchmen. 
One  rather  tragic  case  arose  in  connection  with 
the  race  track  bill  to  w^hich  we  have  already  re- 
ferred. A  young  man  of  good  parts  having 
given  assurances  to  the  people  of  his  district 
of  his  probable  adherence  to  the  bill  was  or- 
dered by  his  boss  to  vote  against  it.  True  to 
the  discipline  of  his  organization  he  did  so,  al- 
though his  ''No'*  was  a  self -pronounced  sen- 
tence of  political  death.  He  never  got  a  cent 
for  his  sacrifice.  If  there  are  any  pickings  for 
the  purchasable  member  of  the  legislature 
these  days,  they  are  from  the  small  fry  of  cor- 
ruptionists — not  from  the  big  business  inter- 
ests. It  was  commonly  reported  prior  to  1911 
that  a  seat  in  the  California  legislature  was 


CORRUPTION  BY  BIG  BUSINESS     117 

worth  $3000.  They  are  no  longer  capitalized 
at  any  figure. 

The  new  method  is,  from  the  corporation 
standpoint,  infinitely  superior  to  the  old,  which 
was  fraught  with  the  danger  of  exposure  and 
prosecution.  By  processes  rarely  illegal  they 
now  become  an  integral  part  of  the  organiza- 
tion which  determines  the  choice  of  legislators. 
They  thus  control  the  product  of  legislation  at 
all  times  except  when  a  party  organized  upon 
principle  drives  the  machine  from  its  strong- 
hold and  puts  into  power  real  servants  of  the 
people. 

There  is  scarcely  a  citizen  of  our  country  who 
has  not  heard  the  expression  ''The  System." 
The  great  majority  of  them,  however,  have  only 
a  very  hazy  idea  as  to  what  the  expression 
means.  It  is  variously  used,,  but  most  signifi- 
cantly to  describe  a  condition  of  combination  or 
cooperation  on  the  part  of  great  financial  en- 
terprises to  aifect  the  operation  of  government. 
There  is  little  evidence  that  there  is  anything 
formal  about  it.  It  is  simply  an  understanding 
among  the  men  who  look  out  for  the  political 
interests  of  the  big  corporations.  In  the  old 
days  their  representatives  in  the  lobby  pooled 
their  interests,  and  by  an  alliance  made  their 
control  over  the  legislature  more  certain.  In 
these  days,  the  combination  is  normally  effected 


118  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

tlirougli  undiscoverable  cliannels,  and  witli  no 
possible  implication  of  the  individual  officers 
of  the  corporations,  but  is  none  the  less  effec- 
tive. 

Frequently,  when  some  one  big  corporation 
has  secured  the  control  of  the  politics  of  a  State, 
or  of  a  city,  the  other  corporations,  instead  of 
dealing  directly  in  politics,  deal  with  this  major 
corporation,  and  it  becomes  a  clearing  house 
for  the  political  activities  of  all  the  big  business 
interests  of  the  community.  An  excellent  ex- 
ample of  this  was  the  situation  which  prevailed 
with  regard  to  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  in 
the  State  of  California  prior  to  the  advent  to 
power  of  the  progressive  administration  of 
Governor  Hiram  Johnson  in  1911.  Any  one 
who  wanted  legislation  went  to  the  representa- 
tive of  the  Southern  Pacific,  who  disposed  of 
legislative  favors  with  almost  regal  lavishness. 
The  policy  of  this  great  corporation  was,  once 
its  own  demands  were  satisfied,  a  fairly  liberal 
one.  It  was  friendly  to  education  and  gladly 
acquiesced  in  large  appropriations  for  state  in- 
stitutions. It  is  not  uncommon,  therefore,  to 
find  high-minded  people,  now  forced  to  run  the 
gauntlet  of  the  whole  legislature,  shamefacedly 
sighing  for  the  simplicity  of  the  ''System." 

Another  aspect  of  the  political  power  of  the 
great  corporations,  and  one  which  has  been  too 


CORRUPTION  BY  BIG  BUSINESS     119 

little  commented  upon,  is  their  power  to  control 
votes.  Every  such  corporation  employs  vast 
nmnbers  of  men,  over  whom  they  can  exercise 
a  great  deal  of  influence.  It  is  not  uncommon 
for  such  corporations  to  order  them  to  vote  in 
a  particular  way,  and  while  it  is  impossible  to 
say  to  what  extent  the  order  is  obeyed  there 
can  be  no  doubt  but  it  has  a  very  material  in- 
fluence on  the  result  of  many  elections.  More 
commonly  the  corporations  effect  their  purpose 
by  inducing  their  men  to  stay  away  from  the 
polls,  by  which  means  a  check-list  test  can  be 
applied  to  their  loyalty.  There  was  at  one  time 
grave  danger  that  this  power  to  control  votes 
would  increase.  It  seemed  as  if  the  corpora- 
tions were  beginning  to  see  the  economic  and 
political  advantages  of  sharing  with  their  em- 
ployees some  measure  of  the  plunder  which  they 
wrested  from  the  people.  If  they  had  generally 
adopted  the  policy  of  making  their  employees 
somewhat  better  off  than  other  men  of  the  same 
class,  they  might  have  made  the  interests  of  the 
employees  their  own.  A  few  years  ago  it  ap- 
peared highly  probable  that  within  a  short  time 
we  should  see  great  corporate  interests  in  which 
the  laboring  men  and  the  capitalists  presented 
a  united  front,  politically,  to  every  effort  to  reg- 
ulate or  control  them.  Like  the  robber  barons 
of  feudal  times,  the  heads  of  these  corporations 


120  GOVERNMENT  FOE  THE  PEOPLE 

would  liave  gathered  about  them  great  hosts  of 
retainers  who  would  have  cast  their  votes  at 
the  beck  and  nod  of  their  superiors.  This 
process  of  amalgamation  of  the  interests  of 
masters  and  men  was  being  distinctly,  if  uncon- 
sciously, facilitated  by  the  perfection  of  trades 
unionism.  A  powerful  union  dealing  with  a 
corporation  in  receipt  of  swollen  profits  could 
frequently  force  concessions  which  had  the  ef- 
fect of  making  it  a  partner  in  the  corporate  suc- 
cess. The  most  notable  instance  of  this  part- 
nership was  between  the  glass  ''trust"  and  the 
glass  workers  where  a  hard  and  fast  agreement 
for  mutual  aggrandizement  was  reached. 
Something  of  the  same  sort,  less  formal  but 
more  permanently  successful,  has  taken  place 
between  some  of  our  great  railroads  and  the 
powerful  unions  of  their  employees.  Trust, 
and  Trade  Union,  both  in  their  nature  monopo- 
listic, appeared  to  be  natural  allies,  and  the 
passage  of  time  seemed  to  be  bringing  a  clearer 
comprehension  of  this  fact  to  both. 

It  was,  however,  mere  seeming.  Capital  in 
the  great  trustified  industries  has  taken  ad- 
vantage of  a  coincident  improvement  of  ma- 
chinery and  the  flood  of  cheap  labor  from  East- 
ern and  Southeastern  Europe  to  break  up 
trades  unionism.  Trades  unions  are  now  only 
sporadic  in  the  fundamental  industries  of  our 


CORRUPTION  BY  BIG  BUSINESS     121 

country,  except  that  of  transportation.  The 
trusts  have  been  blind,  perhaps,  to  the  dangers 
of  disassociating  their  interests  from  those  of 
their  employees.  Perhaps  they  have  deliber- 
ately tempted  the  deluge.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
at  the  moment  when  their  top-heaviness,  lack 
of  efiSciency  and  reckless  financiering  are 
threatening  their  economic  supremacy,  they 
stand  without  a  friend  politically,  unless  it  be 
a  mercenary  and  sycophantish  press.  They 
have  alienated  the  middle  class  by  their  sense- 
less exactions.  Their  employees  are  ignorant, 
hard-pressed,  half-starv^ed  proletarians  among 
whom — and  small  wonder — the  revolutionary 
doctrines  of  syndicalism  spread  like  wildfire. 

There  is  in  modern  society  a  fundamental 
antithesis.  Politically  speaking,  society  is 
democratic ;  economically,  society  is  feudal.  So 
far,  feudal  economic  society  has  by  means  of 
the  corrupt  methods  we  have  discussed  in  this 
chapter  pretty  well  dominated  our  political  de- 
mocracy. The  supreme  test  of  democracy  will 
be  to  bring  under  its  control  rebellious  eco- 
nomic society.  If  it  cannot  do  so  and  at  the 
same  time  preserve  the  individual  rights  of 
property;  if  it  cannot  do  so  by  regulation  and 
restraint — by  rate  fixing  and  service  compel- 
ling— there  can  be  but  one  result — Socialism. 
Happily,  economic  feudalism  is  weaker  politi- 


122  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

cally  than  it  has  ever  been  since  the  introduction 
of  machinery.  It  is  beginning  to  disintegrate 
as  a  means  of  production.  There  is  hope  for 
democracy. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Brooks,  John  Graham,  "The  Conflict  Between  Pri- 
vate Monopoly  and  Good  Citizenship." 

Brooks,  R.  C,  "Corruption  in  American  Politics  and 
Life." 

Bryce,  James,  "Hindrances  to  Good  Citizenship,"  pp. 
43-74. 

Churchill,  Winston,  " Conniston, "  (fiction).  "Mr. 
Crewe's  Career,"  (fiction). 

Howe,  F.  C,  "The  City  the  Hope  of  Democracy," 
"European  Cities  at  Work." 

Johnson,  Tom  L.,  "My  Story." 

Lewis,  Alfred  Henry,  "The  Boss,"  (fiction). 

Lindsey,  Ben  B.,  and  Higgins,  Harvey  J.,  "The 
Beast." 

Steffens,  Lincoln,  "The  Shame  of  the  Cities,"  "The 
Upbuilders. ' ' 

Tarbell,  Ida  M.,  "The  Tariff  in  Our  Times." 

Wilcox,  D.  F.,  "Great  Cities  of  America,"  "Munici- 
pal Franchises,"  "The  American  City,"  pp.  59-90. 


DR.  M.  C  BAMJEE, 
M.  D.  (Harv'd) 

CfTY  Health  Dept. 

LOS  ANGELES,  CAUF 

CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    COREXJPTION    OF  POLITICS   BY   ORGANIZED   VICE 

At  the  root  of  the  problem  with  which  this 
chapter  deals  lies  the  old  distinction  between 
vice  and  crime.  Crime  is  conduct  so  obviously 
detrimental  to  society  that  there  is  an  absolute 
consensus  of  opinion  concerning  its  prohibition. 
Crimes  are  clearly  offenses  against  society, 
which  society  has  no  hesitation  in  using  its  ut- 
most force  to  suppress.  Vices,  on  the  other 
hand,  are  primarily  harmful  to  the  people  that 
practice  them,  and  only  secondarily  injure  so- 
ciety. Certain  of  them  like  drunkenness,  the 
use  of  certain  drugs,  gambling  and  the  practice 
of  sexual  irregularity  have  come  to  be  recog- 
nized as  inimical  to  society,  and  to  be  the  sub- 
ject of  legal  restrictions.  Only  to  a  limited  ex- 
tent have  vices  been  prohibited  as  such,  and 
the  laws  which  in  certain  States  make  gam- 
bling, fornication  and  adultery  criminal  have 
not  been  noticeably  effective.  In  general  the 
effort  of  society  has  been  to  regulate  or  stop 
altogether  the  business  of  ministering  to  these 
vices.    Upon  this  subject  there  is  no  consensus 

123 


124  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

of  opinion.  No  policy  with  regard  to  these 
vices  is  agreed  to  even  by  a  large  majority  of 
the  people.  Even  when  a  majority  does  ac- 
quiesce in  some  particular  mode  of  treatment, 
the  support  of  the  measure  adopted  is  fre- 
quently so  lukewarm  as  to  make  its  enforce- 
ment a  matter  of  great  difficulty.  It  is  indeed 
veiy  much  easier  to  the  average  citizen  to  en- 
dorse the  enactment  of  a  law  than  to  be  active 
in  his  desire  for  its  enforcement.  We  are 
rather  prone  as  a  people  to  aspire  to  very  high 
ideals  in  our  laws  and  then  to  resent  being 
bothered  about  their  execution.  Add  to  this 
peculiar  insincerity  numerous  very  real  differ- 
ences of  opinion,  and  such  a  substantial  consen- 
sus of  opinion  as  is  necessary  to  the  enforce- 
ment of  any  law  is  obviously  impossible.  We 
have  already  in  the  first  chapter  of  this  book 
commented  upon  the  opportunity  for  graft 
which  is  afforded  by  the  difference  between  the 
legal  and  the  actual  moral  standards  of  the 
people.  This  opportunity  is,  of  course,  greatly 
magnified  where  the  law  has,  even  theoretically, 
no  adequate  backing.  It  need  not  surprise  us, 
therefore,  if  the  effort  to  regulate  or  prohibit 
the  purveying  of  these  vicious  pleasures  is  a 
fruitful  source  of  political  corruption. 

Before  we  can  understand  the  spread  of  the 
infection  of  our  political  institutions  from  this 


CORRUPTION  BY  ORGxVNIZED  VICE    125 

source  we  must  realize  the  relation  whicli  exists 
between  the  three  great  vice  purveying  indus- 
tries. The  trade  in  women,  vast  and  enor- 
mously profitable  as  it  is,  has  very  little  direct 
political  power.  The  number  of  men  engaged 
in  it  is  small  and  though  the  introduction  of 
woman  suffrage  will  greatly  increase  its  voting 
strength,  it  will  remain  relatively  weak.  The 
business  is  so  unspeakably  vile  that  it  can  not 
raise  its  voice  in  its  own  defense  and  there  are 
few  indeed  among  the  general  public  so  de- 
praved as  to  give  it  open  aid.  There  is  no  pol- 
itician so  corrupt  that  he  will  not  record  an  em- 
phatic "Aye"  on  any  White  Slave  bill.  The 
professional  gamblers  are  not  very  numerous 
and,  while  their  busines's  is  not  so  utterly  be- 
yond the  pale  as  that  of  the  pander,  it  finds  few 
advocates.  The  last  great  battle  against  the 
gambling  fraternity  on  the  subject  of  race  track 
betting  showed  no  defense  of  gambling,  the  only 
argument  of  the  gamblers  being  that  their  trade 
was  necessary  to  racing.  In  the  liquor  traffic, 
however,  we  come  to  a  very  different  grade  of 
business.  Here  we  are  dealing,  not  with  a  busi- 
ness ministering  to  a  limited  class  of  the  de- 
praved, but  with  a  great  industry  which  sup- 
plies in  vast  quantities  a  commodity  desired  by 
a  proportion  of  the  normal  citizenry  of  the 
country.    There  is  in  their  opinion  absolutely 


126  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

nothing  wrong  in  the  properly  regulated  sale  of 
liquor.  Relatively  speaking,  then,  the  liquor 
business  has  the  advantage,  not  only  of  pro- 
digious wealth,  but  of  comparative  respectabil- 
ity. It  has  other  great  sources  of  political 
power  of  which  we  shall  speak  presently,  and  it 
is  in  the  position,  if  its  interests  are  the  same, 
to  protect  the  other  vice-mongers  along  with 
itself. 

Now,  little  as  he  likes  to  acknowledge  it,  the 
saloon  owner  is  very  closely  connected  in  inter- 
est with  the  owner  of  the  gambling  den  and  the 
brothel.     In  the  first  place,  liquor  is  in  great  de- 
mand by  the  patrons  of  the  latter  resorts.    Men 
must  needs  inflame  themselves  with  strong  drink 
before  the  grosser  fonns  of  madness  can  be  en- 
joyed.   Vast  quantities  of  liquor  are  sold  in 
such  places  at  exaggerated  prices   and  these 
places  are  one  and  all  profitable  customers  of 
the   brewers,    distillers    and   wine   merchants. 
Furthermore,  the  conditions  in  the  liquor  busi- 
ness are  such  today  that  it  is  very  difficult  for 
the  saloonkeeper  to  run  a  decent  saloon  if  he 
desires  to.     In  times  gone  by  the  liquor  store 
with  its  stock  and  fixtures  belonged  to  the  sa- 
loonkeeper, and  the  profits  of  the  retail  trade 
made  him  a  fat,  rich  and  near-respectable  citi- 
zen.   At  present  probably  very  close  to  ninety 
per  cent,  of  all  saloons  are  not  owned  by  their 


CORRUPTION  BY  ORGANIZED  VICE    127 

nominal  proprietors.  In  the  eager  rush  for  an 
outlet  for  their  several  products,  the  brewers 
and  distillers  have  been  willing  to  finance  any 
capable-appearing  young  fellow  who  wanted  to 
start  a  saloon.  They  rent  the  premises  and  fit 
them  up,  add  a  stock  of  liquor,  and  secure  them- 
selves by  a  chattel  mortgage.  Under  this  sys- 
tem the  number  of  saloons  has  been  multiplied 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  genuine  demand  for 
them,  and  the  profits  of  the  retail  business  very 
much  reduced.  In  these  days  unless  the  saloon 
is  in  an  exceptionally  good  location,  or  unless 
the  saloonkeeper  is  an  exceptionally  good  hand 
with  the  boys,  there  is  little  more  than  wages 
for  the  proprietor.  Face  to  face  every  month 
with  interest  payments,  principal  pajnuents, 
and  the  monthly  bills  for  beer  supplied  by  the 
financing  brewery,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the 
struggling  drink  dispenser  finds  his  scruples 
against  allowing  gamblers  and  evil  women  to 
ply  their  trade  in  his  rear  room  breaking  down. 
The  brewers  and  distillers  have  lately  professed 
to  be  veiy  much  shocked  at  the  conditions  pre- 
vailing in  the  retail  liquor  trade  and  have  taken 
some  steps  to  reform  the  saloon.  Until,  how- 
ever, they  reduce  the  economic  pressure  on  the 
poor  saloonkeeper  there  will  be  no  great  im- 
provement in  the  morality  of  the  saloon.  The 
intimacy  between  the  purveyors  to  our  three 


128  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

great  vices  is  a  very  close  one,  and  it  will  take 
something  more  than  protestations  to  open  up 
a  gap  between  them.  At  present,  as  we  shall 
see,  it  is  the  saloon  machine  which  champions, 
of  course  without  unnecessary  fanfare  or  pa- 
rade, the  other  vices  in  distress. 

We  have  already  noted  that  the  liquor  busi- 
ness possesses  that  veiy  essential  source  of  po- 
litical power,  vast  wealth.  In  this  respect  it 
bears  the  same  relation  to  politics  that  is  borne 
by  any  of  the  great  corporate  influences  of  the 
country.  Beyond  this,  however,  the  saloon 
plays  a  part  of  the  first  importance  in  the  work- 
ing of  machine  politics.  It  is  indeed  the  cen- 
ter around  which  every  such  machine  is  built. 
Despite  all  that  the  extreme  opponents  of  the 
saloon  may  say,  it  is  the  only  existing  social 
center  for  the  great  mass  of  the  people.  It  is 
in  a  very  real  sense  the  poor  man's  club.  In  it 
congregate  the  men  of  the  neighborhood,  and  if 
this  were  the  whole  story  it  would  be  evident 
that  the  leader  or  organization  which  controlled 
the  saloo-n  would  control  the  best  of  opportuni- 
ties for  coming  into  personal  touch  with  the 
electorate.  The  saloonkeepers  and  their  bar- 
tenders are  in  direct  proportion  to  their  success 
''good  fellows."  The  very  qualities  which 
draw  custom  to  their  bars  make  them  natural 
leaders  among  the  simple  men  who  frequent 


CORRUPTION  BY  ORGANIZED  VICE    129 

them.  The  temperance  enthusiast  who  pictures 
the  bar-keeper  as  an  ogre  is  vastly  deceived. 
He  does  not  wear  the  brand  of  Cain  or  any 
lesser  criminal  on  his  brow,  and  he  possesses 
many  of  the  more  elementary  human  virtues. 
He  has  an  opportunity  to  do  many  small  favors 
for  his  customers  such  as  cashing  checks  and 
giving  limited  credit.  He  not  only  more  or  less 
influences  all  his  regular  patrons  but  attaches 
to  himself  a  few  hangers-on  who  can  be  deliv- 
ered absolutely  as  the  saloon-owner  directs.  It 
is  natural  that  a  machine  of  the  corrupt  order, 
which  is  kept  together  by  something  other  than 
an  appeal  to  principle,  should  find  the  petty  of- 
ficers of  its  organization  among  saloonkeepers. 
As  the  more  influential  bosses  are  simply  men 
of  the  petty  officer  class  who  have  in  some  way 
gained  control  of  the  other  petty  officers,  the 
higher  as  well  as  the  lower  officers  of  the  ma- 
chine are  saloonkeepers  or  ex-saloonkeepers. 
There  are  exceptions,  but  this  is  the  rule. 
Being  thus  strong  politically,  the  friendship  of 
the  saloon  is  sought  by  politicians  of  a  larger 
sort,  and  it  grows  still  stronger  as  the  result 
of  the  alliances  thus  made.  It  is  therefore  pos- 
sible for  the  saloon  to  protect  its  interests  and 
those  of  its  allies  not  only  because  of  its  eco- 
nomic strength  to  influence  the  political  machine 
but  because  it  is  the  machine  it-self.    This  is 


130  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

what  makes  the  corruption  of  politics  by  the 
saloon  so  insidiously  effective. 

It  is  not  difficult,  therefore,  to  realize  that 
there  is  a  close  connection  between  the  political 
activities  of  big  business  and  the  liquor  traffic. 
Just  as  the  rich  brewer  dislikes  to  acknowledge 
his  relation  to  the  lawbreaking  joint,  so  the  cor- 
poration magnate  hesitates  to  own  association 
with  the  great  political  power  of  the  saloon. 
His  control  of  politics,  however,  is  based  upon 
the  machine  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  so  largely 
dominated  by  the  saloonkeeper.  In  almost 
every  stniggle  the  saloon  and  the  great  inter- 
ests are  allies.  Hence  that  otherwise  unex- 
plainable  reluctance  of  certain  pillars  of  the 
church  and  ornaments  of  society  to  lend  the  in- 
fluence of  their  names  to  attacks  even  upon  the 
grosser  vices.  This  explains  why  so  many  men 
of  substance  are  so  insistent  that  the  preacher 
devote  himself  to  the  ''simple  gospel."  To 
get  nearer  home  than  Judea  of  two  thousand 
years  ago  savors  to  them  of  danger  to  their  in- 
heritance of  an  efficient  and  venal  machine.  On 
the  other  hand  the  saloonkeeper  is  seldom  pro- 
gressive in  his  views  of  economic  and  political 
questions.  Reform  of  any  sort  spells  terror 
for  him.  He  is  a  natural  conservative,  agree- 
ing in  all  points  with  those  representatives  of 


CORRUPTION  BY  ORGANIZED  VICE    131 

corporate  wealth  who  pin  their  hope  to  things 
as  they  are. 

We  may  now  consider  the  operation  of  the 
great  political  force  of  the  saloon  in  protecting 
the  several  forms  of  vice  pui'veyance  from  the 
effect  of  restrictions  concerning  which  there  is 
no  popular  agreement.  In  defeating  hostile 
legislation  and  in  promoting  that  which  favors 
their  business  and  that  of  their  allies  and  de- 
pendents, the  saloon  operates  much  as  does  big 
business,  sometimes  by  the  use  of  money  and 
other  influences  directly  on  the  members  of  the 
legislature,  but,  more  normally  in  these  days, 
by  means  of  its  control  of  the  machine.  In  the 
same  way  it  secures  the  complaisance  of  the 
local  authorities  to  the  constant  infringements 
of  the  law  of  which  almost  all  saloons  are  guilty. 
Moreover,  a  very  interesting  situation  results 
where  these  laws  which  are  broken  are  not  an 
expression  of  the  real  desires  of  the  community. 
This,  as  we  all  know,  is  frequently  the  case,  es- 
pecially in  large  cities.  It  is  the  situation  log- 
ically expected  to  arise  from  that  proneness  of 
the  American  people  to  lend  themselves  to  the 
enactment  into  law  of  general  moral  aspirations 
without  any  accompanjdng  earnest  desire  for 
their  enforcement.  Where  the  attempted  repres- 
sion goes  beyond  the  real  desires  of  the  com- 


132  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

munity,  it  is  clear  that  no  serious  political  con- 
sequences can  attend  upon  an  attitude  of  indif- 
ference as  to  the  enforcement  of  the  law  on  the 
part  of  public  officials.  If  the  law  is  enforced, 
no  one  can  truly  blame  the  zealous  officer  who  is 
responsible  for  it.  This  situation  is  the  cause 
of  that  police  corruption  which  is  such  a  wide- 
spread phenomenon  in  our  American  cities. 
The  police  know  of  practically  all  the  violations 
of  the  law  committed  by  the  establishments 
which  minister  to  the  various  forms  of  vice. 
It  is  an  easy  thing,  therefore,  to  say  to  the  law 
breaker  in  the  laconic  dialect  of  graft,  "Put  up 
or  we'll  shut  you  up."  Sometimes  the  tribute 
thus  wrung  from  these  wrong-doers  is  the  vul- 
gar little  perquisite  of  the  patrolman  on  the 
beat.  Sometimes  it  is  shared  with  the  officials 
*  *  higher  up. ' '  Sometimes  an  important  and  re- 
sponsible official,  a  Lieutenant  Becker  for  ex- 
ample, has  it  collected  for  himself  directly. 
Every  dealer  in  vice,  from  the  simple  saloon- 
keeper who  wants  to  sell  a  few  glasses  of  beer 
on  Sunday  to  the  proprietors  of  the  dives  of 
the  unspeakable  degree  of  infamy,  are  subject 
to  this  fonn  of  blackmail.  Even  when  the  sa- 
loon as  a  political  force  is  dominant  in  the  city, 
it,  in  general,  has  to  put  into  office  such  a  dis- 
honest set  of  grafters  that  they  will  not  play 
fair  even  with  the  machine  which  made  them. 


CORRUPTION  BY  ORGANIZED  VICE    133 

It  is   also   unfortunately  true   that  even   the 
strongest  and  most  righteous  head  of  an  admin- 
istration can  do  next  to  nothing  to  prevent  the 
petty  grafting  of  the  individual  members  of  the 
police  force  where  the  latitude  of  local  public 
opinion  on  the  subject  of  law  enforcement  is  of 
such  degree.    So  long  as  a  discrepancy  exists 
between  the  face  of  the  law  and  the  hearts  of  the 
people  there  will  be  graft.     The  frightful  police 
corruption  of  New  York  which  recently  shocked 
the  whole  country  has  long  been  no  secret  to 
those  who  have  been  familiar  with  the  attempted 
regulation  of  vice  in  that  city.    It  grew  out 
of  the  difference  in  moral  standard  between 
an  up-state  legislature  and  the  public  opinion 
of  the  metropolis.    In  particular  the  Sunday 
closing  of  saloons  for  which  the  famous  Raines 
law  provided  was  a  policy  none  too  popular 
among  the  people  of  the  city.    It  was  genu- 
inely enforced  by  Theodore  Roosevelt,  then  Po- 
lice Commissioner,  for  one  Sunday,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  calling  the  force  pretty  largely  away 
from  every  other  duty.     For  a  short  period  he 
kept  up  the  honest  effort  to  enforce  it.    No 
other  police  commissioner  has  ever  even  pre- 
tended to  do   so.    The  thousands  of  saloons 
have  all  the  while  paid  tribute  to  some  one  or 
other.     The    same   is    true    of   the    gambling 
houses,  the  disorderly  hotels,  a>nd  even  of  the 


134  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

individual  street  walker.  We  can  never  liope 
to  put  an  end  to  this  system  until  we  are  ready 
to  recognize  that  a  law  worth  passing  is  worth 
enforcing.  If  it  is  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
whole  community  that  the  state  legislature 
should  enact  laws  distasteful  to  large  sections 
of  the  State,  the  only  logical  thing  to  do  is  to 
provide  state  machinery  for  their  enforcement. 
To  enact  such  laws  and  then  leave  their  enforce- 
ment to  the  officers  chosen  for  the  purpose  by 
the  locality  is  the  rankest  folly.  It  means  the 
loss  of  the  benefit  of  that  uniformity  of  policy 
which  was  the  excuse  for  the  adoption  of  the 
law.  It  means  also  graft  ad  libitum.  How 
long  will  w^e  remain  hypocrites ! 

All  this  suggests  that  these  vicious  practices 
which  threaten  the  integrity  of  our  people  are 
not  to  be  met  only  by  such  regulative  or  restric- 
tive measures  as  are  agreed  to  by  all  the  people, 
or  as  to  which  the  majority  proposes  honestly 
and  thoroughly  to  have  its  way.  They  can, 
however,  only  open  the  way  for  real  construc- 
tive reform.  These  direct  attacks  must  be  sup- 
plemented by  flank  movements.  Political  re- 
form and  honest  party  organization  must  take 
away  from  the  saloon  and  its  associate  vices 
their  political  power.  Public  provision  for 
clean  recreation  in  which  the  leisure  time  of  the 


CORRUPTION  BY  ORGANIZED  VICE    135 

people  may  be  absorbed  must  take  away  their 
patronage,  weaken  their  financial  resources,  and 
at  the  same  time  diminish  their  social  si^ifi- 
cance.  The  leisure  time  of  the  rising  genera- 
tion  is  happily  taking  more  and  more  the  atten- 
tion of  our  moralists  and  social  workers.  Toil, 
within  reasonable  limits,  is  not  a  corrupting 
agency.  At  worst  it  merely  produces  such 
bodily  fatigue  as  predisposes  to  harmful  indul- 
gence in  certain  forms  of  pleasure.  It  is  in  idle 
time  that  the  lure  of  vice  is  felt.  Let  us  have 
more  playgrounds,  more  baths,  more  gynmasi- 
ums,  more  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  more 
neighborhood  centers,  more  regulated  dance 
halls,  more  well  censored  moving  pictures,  more 
rational  amusement  of  every  kind,  and  we  will 
have  in  direct  ratio  a  reduction  of  drunkenness, 
gambling  and  social  vice. 

It  sometimes  seems  as  if  these  diseases  of 
society  inevitably  infect  every  hand  that  touches 
them,  no  matter  what  the  motive.  We  must  not, 
however,  be  discouraged  into  an  abandonment 
of  the  effective  restraints  which  law  can  place 
on  vice.  There  is  a  thorough  method  of  anti- 
sepsis— to  bathe  the  government  in  high  moral 
purpose  that  puts  right  before  purse  or  party. 
Thus  the  foul  places  can  be  made  clean. 


136  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Addams,  Jane,  "A  New  Conscience  and  an  Ancient 

Evil." 
Amos,   Sheldon,  "Comparative  Survey  of  Laws  in 

Force  for  the  Prohibition,  Regulation  and  Licensing 

of  Vice  in  England  and  Other  Countries. ' ' 
Anonymous,  ''Municipalities  and  Vice,"  in  Municipal 

Affairs,  June,  1901. 
Committee  of  Fifteen,  "The  Social  Evil,"  2nd  edition, 

E.  R.  A.  Seligman,  editor. 
Committee  of  Fourteen,   "The   Social  Evil  in  New 

York  City:  A  Study  of  Law  Enforcement." 
Flynt,  Josiah,  "The  World  of  Graft." 
FuLD,  L.  F.,  "Police  Administration,"  pp.  369-415. 
Kneeland,  George  J.,  "Commercialized  Prostitution 

in  New  York  City." 
McAdoo,  W.,  "Guarding  a  Great  City." 
Peters,  John  P.,  "Suppression  of  the  'Raines  Law 

Hotels,'  "  in  Armals  American  Academy,  vol.  32. 
Report  of  the  Chicago  Vice  Commission;  "The  Social 

Evil  in  Chicago." 
Report  of  the  Vice  Commission  of  Minneapolis. 
Riis,  Jacob,  "The  Battle  with  the  Slum." 
Rowntree,  Joseph,  and  Sherwell,  Arthur,  "The 

Temperance  Problem  and  Social  Reform,"  "Taxa- 
tion of  the  Liquor  Trade." 
Sanger,  W.  W.,  "History  of  Prostitution." 
Webb,  Sidney  and  Beatrice,  "The  History  of  Liquor 

Licensing  in  England." 
Wilcox,  D.  F.,  "The  American  City,"  pp.  121-173. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   INITIATIVE,    EEEEKENDUM    AND   RECALL. 

We  ordinarily  think  of  tlie  initiative,  referen- 
dum and  recall  as  the  trilogy  of  modern  pro- 
gressivism.  They  are  generally  regarded  as 
recent  innovations  in  government.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  however,  they  all  have  histories, 
and  have  all  been  more  or  less  familiar  instru- 
ments of  popular  government  for  a  considerable 
time.  The  referendum  is  the  most  ancient.  We 
find  it  in  use  from  the  beginning  of  the  Swiss 
Confederation,  in  which  the  delegates  of  the 
several  States  determined  matters,  not  finally, 
but  "ad  audiendum  et  referendum."  Their 
decision  went  back  to  the  people  of  the  cantons 
they  represented  for  approval  there.  With  the 
introduction  of  representative  institutions  in 
Switzerland,  early  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
the  referendum  was  reinstated,  this  time  as  a 
means  of  check  on  these  representative  govern- 
ments. The  Swiss,  unused  to  representative 
principles,  distrusted  their  legislators,  and 
could  be  reconciled  to  them  only  by  reserving 
to  the  people  the  right  to  veto  by  popular  vote 

137 


138  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

the  laws  passed  by  tliem.  In  some  cantons  tlie 
referendum  was  obligatory  and  applied  to  all 
laws;  in  others  it  was  optional,  being  applied 
only  to  those  laws  concerning  which  a  referen- 
dum petition  was  filed.  Later,  the  government 
of  the  Confederation  adopted  an  optional  refer- 
endum on  constitutional  matters. 

In  the  United  States,  in  the  meantime,  and 
quite  independently  of  Switzerland,  the  refer- 
endum had  been  put  into  practice.  When  the 
constitutional  convention  of  the  new  State  of 
Massachusetts  had  completed  in  1778  the  draft 
of  its  constitution,  it  submitted  it  to  the  people 
for  their  ratification.  This  was  in  strict  ac- 
cordance with  the  prevailing  theory  of  govern- 
ment, which  held  that  all  powers  were  derived 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  and  as  the 
constitution  was  to  be  the  fundamental  law  or 
compact  on  which  all  other  arrangements  were 
to  be  based,  it  was  only  proper  that  it  should  be 
adopted  by  the  people  themselves.  This  con- 
stitution of  1778  was  defeated,  but  in  1780  a 
second  constitution  was  submitted  and  ratified. 
Since  that  time  it  has  gradually  become  the  cus- 
tom in  all  our  States  to  submit  to  the  people 
for  their  ratification,  not  only  new  constitutions, 
but  constitutional  amendments  as  well.  The 
custom  grew  up  also  of  submitting  to  the  people 
other  propositions  of  a  quasi-constitutional  na- 


INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM,  ETC.     139 

ture,  sucli  as  the  issuing  of  bonds  pledging  tlie 
credit  of  the  State  or  fixing  the  site  of  the  state 
capital.  The  principle  was  also  extended  to 
local  governments.  The  organization  of  new 
counties,  the  ratification  of  city  charters,  the 
approval  of  local  bond  issues,  the  granting  of 
franchises  and  many  other  similar  matters  were 
frequently  made  the  subjects  of  popular  vote. 
The  most  striking  instance  of  all  is  to  be  found 
in  the  local  option  liquor  legislation  which  pre- 
vails in  most  of  our  States.  Under  this  system 
the  question  of  prohibiting  the  sale  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  is  settled  by  popular  vote,  and 
by  this  means  upwards  of  two-thirds  of  the  ter- 
ritory, containing  more  than  one-third  of  the 
population  of  the  United  States  is  ''dry."  It 
would  then  be  distinctly  incorrect  to  say  that 
the  referendum  is  a  new  institution  in  the 
United  States.  It  is  only  its  application  to  the 
general  laws  of  state  legislatures  and  every 
day  ordinances  of  city  councils  that  is  new. 

The  initiative  is,  comparatively  speaking,  a 
modern  device  in  government.  It  was  devel- 
oped in  Switzerland  in  the  early  part  of  the 
nineteenth  century  to  meet  fully  that  sense  of 
distrust  which  was  partly  expressed  by  the 
adoption  of  the  referendum.  The  legislature, 
as  well  as  doing  things  which  the  people  would 
not  have  done,  might  leave  undone  things  which 


140  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

the  people  would  have  clone.  Hence  it  was  nec- 
essary to  endow  the  people  with  power  to  pro- 
pose legislation.  The  Swiss  constitutions  usu- 
ally provide  that  a  measure  proposed  by  popu- 
lar petition  shall  be  submitted  first  to  the  legis- 
lature to  give  it  an  opportunity  to  adopt  or  re- 
ject it.  In  some  cantons  measures  are  submit- 
ted in  final  form,  in  others,  only  the  general 
terms  of  the  proposition  are  put  forward  by 
the  people,  the  detail  drafting  being  left  to  the 
legislatures.  If  rejected,  however,  the  meas- 
ure must  be  submitted  to  the  people,  and  if 
passed  by  them  it  becomes  a  law.  In  some 
cases  the  legislature  is  peraiitted  to  propose 
alternatives  to  be  voted  on  at  the  same  time  as 
the  original  proposition.  Our  only  experience 
with  the  initiative  in  the  United  States  has  been 
with  regard  to  local  option  liquor  laws,  some 
of  which  provide  for  the  submission  of  the  ques- 
tion to  the  people  upon  a  popular  initiative 
petition.  This  has  somewhat  familiarized  us 
in  the  United  States  with  a  portion  of  the  legis- 
lative policy  of  a  locality,  at  least,  originating 
with  the  people  themselves. 

The  recall  is  nearly  as  ancient  as  the 
referendum.  Its  origin  is  buried  in  more  or 
less  obscurity.  There  is  evidence  that  it  has 
existed  time  out  of  mind  in  Switzerland,  and 
several  of  the  cantonal  constitutions  now  make 


INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM,  ETC.     141 

provisions  for  it.  There  is  no  record  of  its  use, 
at  least  in  modern  times,  annual  elections  leav- 
ing little  room  for  tlie  recall.  It  has  been  al- 
leged by  some  writers  that  it  existed  in  the  Ar- 
ticles of  Confederation  under  which  our  na- 
tional affairs  were  directed  from  1778  to 
1789.  Those  articles  provided  that  the  repre- 
sentatives of  each  State  might  be  recalled  by 
the  legislature  which  had  elected  them.  This, 
however,  differs  very  markedly  from  the  recall 
as  we  now  understand  it.  The  delegates  of  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation  were  little  more 
than  representatives  of  the  States  as  units; 
more  on  the  order  of  diplomatic  agents  of  inde- 
pendent governments  than  members  of  the 
representative  body  of  an  organic  union.  They 
were  subject  to  recall,  as  all  such  agents  are,  by 
the  power  that  appointed  them.  The  fact  that 
their  functions  were  revocable  grew  out  of  the 
nature  of  the  assemblage,  not  out  of  the  desire 
to  make  them  amenable  to  the  people. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  recall  in  American 
government  was  in  the  Los  Angeles  charter 
amendments  of  1903.  It  went  into  the  Ix»s 
Angeles  charter  along  with  the  initiative  and 
the  referendum,  the  principal  proponent  of  the 
scheme  being  Dr.  John  R.  Haines.  Dr.  Haines 
alleges,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  his 
word,  that  he  had  no  knowledge  of  the  Swiss 


142  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

recall,  and  that  he  simply  worked  the  matter 
out  in  his  own  head  with  nothing  but  the  pro- 
visions in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  to  go 
upon.  It  has  been  asserted  by  a  well  known 
writer  on  such  subjects,  that  the  recall  provision 
of  the  Los  Angeles  charter  is  almost  identical 
word  for  word,  with  that  of  the  cantonal  consti- 
tution of  Schaffhausen.  A  glance,  however,  at 
the  excerpts  from  that  constitution  and  the 
charter  of  Los  Angeles  will  serve  to  free  Dr. 
Haines  from  a  charge  of  slavish  copying.  He  is 
entitled  to  the  credit  of  introducing  to  American 
government  a  highly  original  and  practically 
framed  addition  to  the  mechanism  of  democ- 
racy. 

Contrary  to  the  usual  belief,  the  recall  is  the 
least  radical  of  all  these  institutions.  It  does 
not  at  all  alter  the  usual  method  of  making  laws 
and  it  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  general 
theory  of  representative  government.  Indeed, 
the  existence  of  the  recall  is  logically  necessary 
to  the  thorough  democracy  of  a  representative 
government.  Under  the  usual  system  of  elect- 
ing representatives  for  a  definite  period,  they 
are  subject  to  control  only  at  the  moment  of 
their  selection.  Of  course,  the  desire  of  hold- 
ing oflfice,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  honest 
fear  of  public  opinion  will  cause  them  to  rep- 
resent faithfully  the  wishes  of  their  constitu- 


INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM,  ETC.     143 

ents,  bu-t  at  any  one  moment  they  and  not  the 
people  control  the  situation.  To  be  thoroughly 
democratic,  the  organization  of  the  powers  of 
government  must  give  to  the  people  poten- 
tial authority  at  all  times.  Thus,  the  recall  is 
logically  the  last  word  in  representative  democ- 
racy. If,  of  course,  the  recall  were  to  be  used 
extensively,  it  might  result  in  an  extreme  dis- 
organization of  government.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence, however,  that  it  will  be  so  used.  It  is 
never  used  in  Switzerland,  and  in  those  Ameri- 
can cities  which,  beginning  with  Los  Angeles, 
have  adopted  the  recall,  and  which  now  num- 
ber nearly  three  hundred,  there  have  been  few 
instances  of  its  use.  In  Los  Angeles  itself,  two 
persons  have  been  made  the  subject  of  recall:  a 
councilman  accused  of  corruption,  and  a  mayor 
accused  of  intriguing  with  the  purveyors  of  vice. 
The  councilman  was  recalled  and  the  mayor  re- 
signed before  the  recall  election  was  held.  In 
Dallas,  Texas,  two  separate  recall  elections 
w^ere  held  to  recall  the  members  of  the  school 
board,  the  difficulty  growing  out  of  the  dismissal 
of  a  popular  principal  of  the  high  school.  A 
subsequent  effort  to  recall  the  members  of  the 
city  council  and  mayor  was  defeated  by  the 
circulation  of  a  counter  petition  which  was 
promptly  signed  by  more  than  a  majority  of  the 
qualified  voters  of  Dallas,  upon  which  gentle 


144     GOVERNMENT  FOE  THE  PEOPLE 

hint  the  recallers  ceased  their  operations.  In 
Seattle,  Mayor  Gill  was  recalled  because  of  his 
attitude  with  regard  to  an  open  to^vn,  and  in 
Tacoma,  a  serious  controversy  resulted  in  two 
recall  elections  which  were  partially  success- 
ful. In  the  city  of  Berkeley,  California,  an  ef- 
fort was  made  to  recall  the  school  board  in  the 
Spring  of  1912  because  of  their  refusal  to  con- 
tinue in  office  a  veiy  efficient  superintendent  of 
schools.^  It  was  pretty  clear  that  the  school 
board  had  made  a  serious  error  of  judgment  in 
refusing  to  reemploy  the  superintendent.  The 
people  of  Berkeley  held  that  the  board  of  edu- 
cation had  been  elected  to  choose  a  superintend- 
ent, and  that  it  was  not  proper  to  recall  them 
for  a  mere  error  of  judgment  in  carrying  out 
this  duty.  The  recall  was  defeated  by  a  de- 
cisive majority.  From  our  experience  with  the 
recall,  it  is  plain  that  it  can  ordinarily  be  suc- 
cessfully used  only  in  those  cases  where  the 
officer  who  is  sought  to  be  recalled  has  been 
guilty  of  corruption  or  some  serious  moral 
dereliction. 

The  recall  as  a  state  institution  is,  practically 
speaking,  unworkable.  The  difficulty  of  secur- 
ing signers  to  a  recall  petition  is  very  consider- 
able, men  hesitating  to  put  down  their  names 

1  The  writer  took  an  active  part  iu  this  campaign  in  advo- 
cacy of  the  recall. 


INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM,  ETC.     145 

upon  such  a  document  which  is  open  to  public 
inspection;  and  the  consequent  trouble  and  ex- 
pense of  securing  a  petition  of  the  requisite 
size  with  signers  distributed  over  the  State  puts 
an  almost  impassable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  its 
use.  The  only  instance  in  which  it  can  be 
used  will  probably  be  where  an  official  has  com- 
mitted some  act  of  malfeasance  so  palpable  and 
so  atrocious  as  to  create  a  practically  unani- 
mous public  demand  for  his  removal.  With  re- 
gard to  the  recall  of  judges,  we  shall  speak  in 
a  succeeding  chapter. 

Not  only  is  the  recall  likely  to  be  used  spar- 
ingly, and  with  a  proper  degree  of  conserva- 
tism, but  it  is  sei-ving  a  very  useful  purpose  in 
reconciling  the  people  to  that  concentration  of 
power  and  responsibility  which  seems  essential 
to  the  proper  working  of  democratic  govern- 
ment. It  is  doubtful  if  the  people  would  ever 
have  become  willing  to  adopt  the  commission 
plan  of  government,  which  delivers  the  city  ad- 
ministration without  reserve  to  a  board  of  five 
men,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  recall.  Galves- 
ton adopted  the  commission  form  of  govern- 
ment in  1901,  and  Houston  in  1905,  but  it  was 
not  until  Des  Moines  joined  the  initiative,  ref- 
erendum and  recall  to  the  commission  form  of 
government  that  it  began  to  be  looked  on  with 
favor  throughout  the  United  States.    People 


U6     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

recognized  the  wonderful  success  of  the  new 
plan  of  government  in  Galveston,  but  wise  old 
people  still  shook  their  heads  and  said,  '*It  is 
dangerous.  It  is  un-American  to  give  so  much 
power  without  any  check."  The  recall  will 
play  the  same  part  in  consoling  the  people  for 
the  shortening  of  the  state  and  county  ballot 
and  to  further  concentration  of  administrative 
power. 

The  referendum  is,  as  we  have  seen,  an  al- 
ready familiar  institution.  Its  existence,  also, 
is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  rep- 
resentative government.  It  is,  at  most,  a  veto 
upon  measures  which  must  in  every  instance 
have  originated  Avith  the  legislature,  and  which 
have  received  there  at  least  some  degree  of  dis- 
cussion and  modification.  The  very  existence 
of  such  a  check  is  likely  to  prevent  the  necessity 
of  its  use,  and,  in  consequence,  it  will  in  all 
probability  be  used  only  in  certain  exceptional 
cases.  A  consideration  of  the  Oregon  ballot 
of  1912,  shows  that  in  the  State  which  has  been 
distinctly  the  most  active  in  the  nse  of  direct 
legislation,  of  a  total  of  thirty-seven  proposi- 
tions only  nine  were  referendums.  Six  of 
these  were  in  the  nature  of  constitutional 
amendments  on  which  a  referendum  was  oblig- 
atory, only  three  being  ordered  by  a  petition 
of  the  people.     California  in  her  first  year  of 


INITIATIVE,  EEFERENDUM,  ETC.     147 

the  referendum  on  state  laws  had  on  the  ballot 
at  the  November  election  of  1912  three  referen- 
dum propositions.  These  three  were,  in 
reality,  only  one,  the  bills  as  passed  by  the  legis- 
lature having  been  companion  measures. 

Of  the  forty-eight  propositions  submitted  to 
the  voters  of  California  in  November  1914,  but 
four  were  referenda  by  petition.  In  those 
municipalities  in  which  the  people  possess  the 
privilege  of  the  referendum,  it  has  been  spar- 
ingly used. 

In  general,  we  may  say  that  the  referendum 
produces  whatever  result  it  accomplishes  as  a 
simple  in  terrorem  without  the  necessity  of  its 
actual  application.  Not  only  does  its  existence 
ward  off  the  passage  of  bad  laws  but  it  tends 
also  to  eliminate  undesirable  methods  of  in- 
fluencing the  conduct  of  the  legislature.  What 
profit  is  it  to  control  the  legislature  so  as  to  be 
able  to  pass  bills  in  the  corporation  interest  if 
on  a  possible  referendum  to  the  people  those 
bills  may  be  defeated?  The  corrupt  legislator 
has,  under  the  referendum,  no  merchantable 
commodity  of  which  he  may  dispose.  The 
referendum,  too,  has  to  play,  along  with  the 
recall,  an  important  part  in  reconciling  our  peo- 
ple to  the  centralization  of  authority  in  a  few 
hands,  and  to  the  abolition  of  the  traditional 
checks  and  balances  of  government. 


148     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

When  we  turn  to  the  initiative  we  reach  an 
institution  of  a  very  different  character. 
Strangely  enough,  in  the  California  campaign 
for  the  initiative,  referendum  and  recall,  it  was 
the  recall  which  drew  all  the  fire  of  the  opposi- 
tion. The  initiative  was  ignored,  while  the  hor- 
rid radicalism  of  the  recall  was  frequently  re- 
ferred to.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the 
initiative  is  by  far  the  most  radical  of  the  three 
institutions  we  have  been  considering.  In  the 
first  place,  it  practically  abolishes  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  State,  because,  under  it,  constitu- 
tional amendments  may  be  proposed  and 
adopted  just  as  easily  as  ordinary  laws.  The 
constitution  is  reduced  to  nothing  more  than  a 
set  of  rules  for  the  legislature.  To  the  mind 
of  the  writer,  this  is  no  serious  objection  to  the 
initiative.  He  firmly  believes  that,  for  our 
state  governments  at  least,  the  day  of  the  rigid 
written  constitution  has  gone  by,  and  that  what 
is  needed  is  such  flexibility  in  the  forms  and 
powers  of  our  state  governments  as  will  enable 
them  to  cope  effectively  with  rapidly  develop- 
ing economic  conditions.^  It  would  be  useless 
to  deny,  however,  that  an  institution  which 
practically  sets  aside  the  restrictive  character 
of  the  state  constitution  is  radical;  far  more 

1  Another  phase  of  this  subject  is  discussed  in  Chapter  X. 


INITIATIVE,  REFEEENDUM,  ETC.     149 

radical  than  either  the  recall  or  the  referen- 
dum. 

Furthermore,  it  appears  almost  certain  that 
the  initiative  will  be  used  extensively.  It  has 
not  been  much  used  in  city  government,  but 
this  is  to  be  readily  accounted  for  by  the  fact 
that  city  govermnent  is  not  so  much  concerned 
with  the  adoption  of  general  policies  as  with 
their  administration.  It  is  the  State  which 
holds  the  great  bulk  of  the  lawmaking  power 
in  its  hands,  and  the  initiative  seems  in  a 
fair  way  to  become  a  monstrously  active  prin- 
ciple. The  following  table  shows  the  compara- 
tive use  of  the  referendum  and  initiative  in 
Oregon  since  the  introduction  of  these  meas- 
ures into  the  Constitution  of  that  State: 


Initiative 

Legislative 

]\Ieasures 

]\Ieasures 

Subjected 

Proposed  by 

to  Refer- 

Year 

Petition 

Adopted 

endum 

Adopted 

1904.... 

2 

2 

0 

0 

1906.... 

10 

7 

1 

1 

1908.... 

11 

8 

4 

2 

1910.... 

25 

8 

1 

0 

1912..., 

28 

8 

3 

1 

Total , 

76 

33 

9 

4 

150  GOVEENMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

In  the  few  years  that  the  initiative  has  been 
in  force  in  the  State  of  Oregon,  the  number  of 
measures  has  steadily  increased  until  in  1912 
there  were  on  the  ballot  twenty-eight  proposi- 
tions proposed  by  initiative  petitions.  Cali- 
fornia, at  her  first  election  after  the  adoption 
of  the  initiative,  had  three  initiative  proposi- 
tions and  three  referenda  by  petition,  all  of 
which  were  defeated.  In  1914,  the  people  of 
California  were  called  upon  to  vote  upon  forty- 
eight  measures.  Twenty-two  of  these  were 
constitutional  amendments  submitted  by  the 
legislature.  A  sad  connnentaiy  upon  the  length 
and  complexity  of  our  more  recent  State  con- 
stitution. One  was  a  concurrent  resolution  call- 
ing a  convention  for  the  revision  of  the  con- 
stitution. Four  were  bond  propositions  sub- 
mitted by  the  legislature.  Four  were  referenda 
by  petition.  The  remaining  seventeen  were 
initiative  measures.  Six  initiative  and  three 
referenda  by  petition  were  adopted  by  the  peo- 
ple. An  initiative  measure  is  the  easiest  way 
in  which  the  propaganda  of  any  ism  can  be 
brought  decisively  before  the  people. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  effect  of  this  wide 
use  of  the  initiative,  we  must  turn  back  for  a 
moment  to  consider  again  the  method  by  which 
multitudes  exercise  volition.  Laws  do  not 
originate    spontaneously    even    with    limited 


INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM,  ETC.     151 

bodies  such  as  our  legislatures.  In  every  case 
they  are  suggested  to  the  legislature  by  the 
member  who  introduces  the  bill.  In  a  large 
number,  perhaps  the  majority  of  cases,  even 
he  is  not  the  originator  of  the  proposition.  It 
has  very  likely  been  given  to  him  by  some  con- 
stituent, or  by  some  organization.  Occa- 
sionally a  committee  appointed  by  the  preced- 
ing legislature  to  make  an  investigation  con- 
cerning some  subject  presents  legislation  rela- 
tive thereto.  A  certain  number  of  more  im- 
portant measures  emanate  from  small  groups 
of  leading  men  of  the  party  in  power  in  the 
State.  None  springs  full  armed  from  the  com- 
posite brain  of  the  legislature.  The  legisla- 
ture through  its  committees,  and  later  by  feeble 
discussion  of  the  measure  on  the  floor,  criti- 
cises, modifies,  or  rejects  the  propositions  made 
to  it.  In  proportion  as  it  is  a  good  legislature, 
it  performs  this  critical  function  carefully  and 
well.  It  is,  of  course,  obviously  true  that  if 
laws  cannot  originate  with  the  legislature  as  a 
whole,  they  certainly  cannot  originate  with  the 
people  as  a  whole.  There  seems  to  have  been 
a  feeling  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  most  ar- 
dent advocates  of  the  initiative  that  by  some 
hocus  pocus  the  people  would  suddenly  and 
spontaneously  evolve  measures  of  surprising 
value  to  themselves.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  how- 


152  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

ever,  initiative  propositions  are  suggested  to 
the  people  by  groups  of  individuals  more  or  less 
perfectly  organized,  who,  for  reasons  of  in- 
terest or  principle,  desire  to  secure  the  adop- 
tion of  particular  legislation.  Under  the 
initiative  provisions  of  the  Oregon  and  Cali- 
fornia constitutions,  there  is  a  limited  oppor- 
tunity only  to  discuss,  and  no  opportunity  to 
modify  these  propositions.  The  State  pub- 
lishes and  distributes  to  the  voters  arguments 
pro  and  con  upon  each  measure,  and  these  ar- 
guments now  form  a  very  substantial  book — 
substantial  physically — of  something  like  250 
pages  at  the  last  Oregon  election.  These  ar- 
guments are  weak,  and  the  illumination  which 
they  shed  on  the  questions  is  no  more  than  that 
dim  light  usually  associated  with  things  of 
mystery.  There  is  some  excellent  discussion 
by  speakers  on  both  sides  of  the  measures 
which  attract  most  public  interest.  The  news- 
papers lend  occasional  aid. 

In  the  campaign  which  preceded  the  election 
of  1914,  in  California,  many  organizations  such 
as  Chambers  of  Commerce,  City  Clubs,  and 
some  of  the  newspapers,  published  lists  of  meas- 
ures with  recommendations  as  to  the  way  in 
which  the  citizens  should  vote.  These  sugges- 
tions were  grasped  at  eagerly.  Where  the 
number  of  measures  to  be  voted  on  is  so  ex- 


INITIATIVE,  EEFEEENDUM,  ETC.     153 

ceedingly  great  as  in  the  last  three  elections  in 
Oregon,  there  is  no  doubt  that,  for  many  of  the 
voters,  the  majority  of  the  measures  are  sur- 
rounded by  an  umbrageous  gloom. 

It  would  painfully  weary  the  reader  to  go 
into  the  relative  merits  and  demerits  of  the 
measures  which  have  been  before  the  people 
in  Oregon  and  California.  In  general  they 
have  illustrated  the  same  popular  tendencies 
which  have  long  been  observable  in  Switzer- 
land. An  aversion  to  spending  money,  even 
where  enlightened  policy  demands  it;  a  whole- 
hearted desire  to  smite  the  corporations  but 
an  unfortunate  lack  of  consensus  as  to  con- 
structive measures;  and  a  tenacious  conserva- 
tism as  to  wholesale  political  or  social  reforms 
are  the  qualities  which  characterize  direct 
legislation  in  Oregon. 

At  the  California  election  of  1914,  the  people 
voted  $15,800,000  bonds  for  public  improve- 
ments, including  $1,800,000  for  buildings  at  the 
University.  It  may  be  inferred  from  this  that 
the  people  of  California  are  more  liberal  than 
the  people  of  Oregon.  They  exhibited  in  gen- 
eral the  same  sort  of  conservatism  in  political 
and  social  reforms  which  has  been  shown  in 
their  northern  neighbor.  Oregon  in  1914  de- 
parted from  this  conservatism  by  adopting 
state  prohibition,  a  measure  which  was  severely 


154  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

beaten  in  California.  The  people  of  Cali- 
fornia, however,  were  guilty  of  one  act  of 
petty  meanness.  They  abolished  the  poll  tax, 
not  because  of  any  reasoned  objection  to  it  as  a 
form  of  taxation,  but  because  they  wished  to 
avoid  paying  it.  It  is  something  better  than 
bossism  and  yet  far  from  perfect.  It  is 
enough  for  our  immediate  pui^jose  to  make 
clear  the  absolute  certainty  in  the  long  run 
that  masses  of  initiative  propositions  will  have 
to  be  voted  on  by  the  majority  of  the  people  in 
the  dark,  and  will  rise  or  fall  with  little  or  no 
regard  to  their  merits.  It  is  possible  to  lay 
traps  for  the  people  similar  to  those  which  were 
formerly  laid  for  the  state  legislatures.  At 
the  California  election  in  1912,  one  of  the  ini- 
tiative measures  voted  upon  had  this  title: 
"An  act  to  prohibit  book  making,  pool  selling, 
and  to  provide  for  a  state  racing  commission; 
to  grant  licenses  for  horse  racing  in  the  State 
of  California,  for  a  limited  period,  and  to 
permit  of  wagering  upon  such  races  by  the 
Paris  Mutual  and  Auction  Pool  systems  only; 
and  repealing  all  acts  and  parts  of  acts  in  con- 
flict with  this  act. ' '  Hundreds  of  people  signed 
the  petition  to  propose  this  measure  on  the 
faith  of  the  statement  in  the  first  clause  that  it 
was  an  act  to  prohibit  book  making  and  pool 
selling.     The  fraud  was  ultimately  exposed  and 


INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM,  ETC.     155 

the  bill  defeated  after  a  very  active  campaign. 
What  would  have  happened  to  a  measure  of  less 
striking  importance  buried  in  the  midst  of 
twenty-five  or  thirty  other  propositions  is  a 
subject  for  serious  reflection. 

There    is    reason    to    fear    that    initiative 
propositions  can  not  be  properly  criticised  by 
the  people  even  with  reference  simply  to  their 
adoption  or  rejection.    It  is  also  clear  that  un- 
der the  Oregon  and  California  laws  there  is  no 
possibility  of  the  amendment  or  correction  of 
an  initiative  measure.     It  may  be  on  the  whole 
a  meritorious  proposition  badly  framed  and 
cumbered    with    some    injudicious    provision. 
There  is  no  chance  to  separate  the  good  from 
the  bad.    In  other  words,  the  initiative  cannot 
be  successfully  used  as  a  substitute  for  a  rep- 
resentative legislature.    The  legislature  with 
all  its  defects  does  give  an  opportunity  for  a 
thorough  going  over  of  the  proposed  law,  and 
for  every  imaginable  kind  of  criticism  of  it. 
Initiation  by  irresponsible  bodies  of  men  and 
quasi  deliberation  before  the  people  can  never 
be  made  to  do  the  work  of  a  genuine  delibera- 
tive assembly.    If  the  initiative  could  be  re- 
served as  a  corrective  for  the  non-action  of  the 
legislature  on  matters  of  vital  importance,  there 
could  be  little  criticism  of  it,  but  it  is  not  used 
in  that  way.    A  glance  at  the  Oregon  ballot  of 


156  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

1912  will  convince  any  observer  that  matters 
of  inconsequent  importance  are  dealt  with  by 
means  of  the  initiative.  On  the  other  hand, 
many  important  matters  are  of  such  a  technical 
character  that  they  can  not  well  be  criticised 
by  the  people.  There  is  no  way  of  restricting 
the  use  of  the  initiative  to  those  purj^oses  for 
which  it  ought  to  be  used.  The  only  way  of 
escape  is  by  so  altering  the  nature  of  the  ini- 
tiative as  to  minimize  the  evils  of  the  institu- 
tion. The  new  Ohio  constitution  contains  the 
suggestion  of  a  better  method  with  regard  to 
the  initiative.  Substantially  it  is  this :  a  small 
proportion  (three  per  cent.)  of  the  total  elec- 
torate may  propose  any  measure,  which  is  by 
this  fact  introduced  into  the  state  legislature. 
The  legislature  may  then  adopt  it  with  or  with- 
out amendments,  or  reject  it.  If  it  adopts  it 
without  amendment,  that  ends  the  matter  unless 
a  referendum  petition  is  filed  in  respect  thereto. 
If  it  adopts  it  with  amendments,  the  measure 
as  originally  introduced  or  with  the  addition 
of  any  amendments  incorporated  therein  may 
be  submitted  by  either  branch  of  the  legisla- 
ture to  the  people  if  an  additional  three  per 
cent,  of  the  electorate  petition  to  that  effect. 
If  the  measure  so  submitted  is  adopted  by  a 
majority  of  those  voting  thereon  it  takes  prece- 


INITIATIVE,  EEFERENDUM,  ETC.     157 

dence  over  tlie  amended  form  passed  by  the 
legislature.  The  proposed  amendment  of  the 
Wisconsin  constitution,  which  was  defeated  at 
the  polls  November  3, 1914,  limited  the  initiative 
to  measures  actually  introduced  into  the  legisla- 
ture. As  in  the  Wisconsin  legislature  each  bill 
must  be  reported  from  a  committee,  there  would 
have  been  under  this  system,  a  reasonable 
g-uarantee  that  the  measure  would  have  received 
some  consideration  by  a  recognized  and  re- 
sponsible body.  The  California  constitution, 
as  amended  in  1911,  provides  for  the  submission 
of  measures  directly  to  the  people  or  to  the 
legislature  upon  eight  or  five  per  cent,  petitions 
respectivelj^  In  the  latter  case,  if  the  legisla- 
ture amends  the  proposition, the  measure  as  pro- 
posed and  the  legislature's  amendments  are 
both  submitted  to  the  people ;  if  the  legislature 
rejects  the  proposal  outright,  the  original  meas- 
ure is  submitted  alone.  As  a  matter  of  prac- 
tice, there  is  too  little  difference  between  the 
percentages  for  direct  submission  and  submis- 
sion to  the  legislature  to  induce  the  friends  of 
any  measure  to  resort  to  the  latter  method  of 
promoting  it.  At  the  session  of  1913,  there  was 
proposed  a  new  constitutional  amendment, 
not  pressed  to  passage,  very  similar  to  the 
Ohio  plan,  except  that  direct  submission  could 


158  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

still  be  secured  by  filing  a  mucb  larger  petition 
(12%).  (See  Appendix  for  Ohio,  and  Wis- 
consin methods.) 

There  is  the  gravest  necessity  of  gearing  in 
some  such  way  the  initiative  on  to  our  legisla- 
tive system.  Measures  introduced  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  legislature,  as  in  Ohio,  with  the 
possibility  of  subsequent  reference  to  the  peo- 
ple will  always  receive  consideration  by  the 
legislature  and  in  the  great  majority  of  in- 
stances they  will  undoubtedly  be  able  to  ar- 
rive at  some  adjustment  which  will  be  satisfac- 
tory to  all  concerned.  It  will  do  away  with  the 
long  ballot  of  initiative  propositions,  in  its  way 
quite  as  serious  an  evil  as  the  long  ballot  of 
elective  officers,  and  it  Avill,  at  the  same  time, 
give  the  people  an  absolute  check  upon  the  pos- 
sible inactivity  of  the  legislature.  With  this 
change  the  initiative  may  rank  alongside  the 
recall  and  referendum  as  an  efficient  mechanism 
for  the  promotion  of  genuinely  popular  gov- 
ernment. As  at  present  organized  in  Cali- 
fornia and  Oregon,  it  is  likely  to  result  in  con- 
fusion and  danger. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and 
Social  Science,  September,  1912.     (A  symposium.) 


INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM,  ETC.     159 

Atlantic  Montlily,  January,  1912,  pp.  143-4:  List  of 
measures  submitted  to  the  people  of  Oregon  in  the 
last  four  elections. 

Beard,  C.  A.,  and  Shultz,  B.  E.,  "Documents  on  the 
Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall." 

Boyle,  James,  *'The  Initiative  and  Referendum." 

Butler,  Nicholas  Murray,  "Why  Should  We 
Change  Our  Form  of  Government?" 

Deploige,  Simon,  ' '  The  Referendum  in  Switzerland. ' ' 

Eaton,  A.  H.,  "The  Oregon  System." 

GiDDiNGS,  F.  H.,  "Democracy  and  Liberty,"  pp.  259- 
266.     (Quarterly.) 

Hartwell,  Edvv^ard  M.,  "Referenda  in  Massachu- 
setts, 1776-1907,"  Proceedings  National  Municipal 
League,  1909,  pp.  334-353. 

Haynes,  John  R.,  "The  Actual  Workings  of  the 
Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,"  in  National 
Municipal  Review,  October,  1912. 

Haynes,  G.  H.,  "People's  Rule  in  Oregon,  1910,"  in 
Political  Science  Quarterly,  March,  1911,  pp.  32- 
62;  "People's  Rule  on  Trial,"  in  ibid,  March,  1913, 
p.  18. 

Honey,  S.  R,,  "The  Referendum  among  the  Eng- 
lish." 

Lobingier,  C.  S.,  "The  People's  Law." 

JjOWeiaj,  a.  L.,  "Governments  and  Parties  in  Conti- 
nental Europe,"  vol.  II,  pp.  238-300. 

McCall,  S.  W.,  "Representative  as  against  Direct 
Government."  (Sen.  Doc.  273,  62d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.) 

Munro,  W.  B.,  "The  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Re- 
call." 


160  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

Oberholtzer,  E.  p.,  "The  Referendum,  Initiative, 
and  Recall  in  America." 

Ogg,  F.  a.,  **  Social  Progress  in  Contemporary 
Europe,"  pp.  200-212. 

Proceedings  American  Political  Science  Association, 
1907,  pp.  193-221. 

Taylor,  Charles  P.,  "Municipal  Initiative,  Referen- 
dum and  Recall  in  Practice,"  in  National  Munici- 
pal Review,  October,  1914. 

Teal,  Joseph  N.,  "The  Practical  Workings  of  the 
Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,"  Proceed- 
ings National  Municipal  League,  1909,  pp.  309-325. 

Vincent,  J.  M.,  "Government  in  Switzerland,"  pp. 
84-90,  188-201. 

Wilcox,  Delos  F.,  * '  Government  by  All  the  People. ' ' 


CHAPTER  X 

OUR   JUDICIAL.  DILEMMA. 

It  was  Hume  who  said  that  man  '4s  engaged 
to  establish  political  society,  in  order  to  ad- 
minister justice:  without  which  there  can  be 
no  peace  among  them,  nor  safety,  nor  mutual 
intercourse.  We  are,  therefore,  to  look  upon 
all  the  vast  apparatus  of  our  government  as 
having  ultimately  no  other  object  or  purpose 
but  the  distribution  of  justice,  or  in  other  words, 
the  support  of  the  twelve  judges.  Kings  and 
parliaments,  fleets  and  armies,  officers  of  the 
court  and  revenue,  ambassadors,  ministers  and 
privy-counselors  are  all  subordinate  in  their 
end  to  this  part  of  administration."  What 
was  true  in  eighteenth  century  England  is  no 
less  true  today.  At  the  veiy  basis  of  civiliza- 
tion lies  the  process  for  the  orderly  adjudica- 
tion of  disputes  between  individuals,  and  the 
punishment  of  offenders  against  society.  Be- 
fore the  establishment  of  courts  barbarism  pre- 
vailed. Their  destruction  would  mean  an- 
archy. It  is  not  enough,  however,  that  there 
should  be  a  mechanism  for  deciding  cases,  i.  e., 

161 


162  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

with  jurisdiction  broad  enough  to  cover  all 
cases  and  with  power  to  enforce  its  decrees. 
There  must  be  implicit  confidence  in  the  wis- 
dom and  fairness  of  the  tribunal,  so  that  men 
will  gladly  submit  to  its  adjudication  and  cheer- 
fully accept  its  judgments.  It  removes  none 
of  the  smart  of  an  unfair  decision  to  know  that 
there  is  nothing  to  do  but  to  obey.  Indeed,  per- 
sistently to  force  men  to  obey  decrees  which 
they  sincerely  feel  are  the  result  of  ignorance, 
prejudice  or  corruption  is  deliberately  to  breed 
revolutionists.  Every  few  months  the  dis- 
patches from  Italy  tell  of  some  atrocity  attri- 
buted to  the  ''Mafia"  or  "Camorra,"  great 
secret  societies  which  defy  the  government. 
Behind  their  present  criminal  activities  is  a 
suggestive  history.  Southern  Italy  and  Sicily 
were  for  centuries  following  the  disintegration 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  horribly  misgoverned  by 
a  succession  of  foreign  despots  who  con- 
trolled the  administration  of  justice  in  the 
interest  of  themselves  or  their  rapacious 
courtiers.  So  long  continued  was  this  reign  of 
injustice  that  it  became  a  point  of  honor 
with  good  Italians,  no  matter  what  their  griev- 
ance, not  to  resort  to  the  courts  of  the  op- 
pressor. Private  disputes  were  settled  by 
vendetta  and,  to  protect  themselves  further, 
they    organized    these    great    secret    societies 


OUR  JUDICIAL  DILEMMA         163 

wliicli  enforced  the  rights  and  obligations  of 
their  members  by  means  of  threats  and  vio- 
lence. Though  the  occasion  for  their  existence 
ceased  long  ago  these  societies  still  continue  in 
blood  and  crime.  Popular  disrespect  for  the 
courts  has  had  in  Italy  its  logical  outcome  in 
outrage  and  murder. 

For  hundreds  of  years  we  rested  content  in 
the  majestic  pronouncement  of  Magna  Charta: 
"To  none  will  we  sell;  to  none  will  ive  deny  or 
delay  right  or  justice."  We  believed  it  to  rep- 
resent the  fact  as  well  as  the  theory  of  our 
legal  system.  Only  within  the  last  ten  years 
have  we  been  rudely  awakened  from  our  confi- 
dent repose,  and  our  sense  of  security  shaken 
by  sounds  of  popular  distrust  of  the  courts. 
The  cry  of  organized  labor  was  the  first  to  be 
heard,  followed  here  and  there  by  the  thin  voice 
of  some  academic  critic.  Before  long  a  dis- 
cordant tumult  raged  about  the  erstwhile  un- 
approachable dignity  of  our  judges.  Laws'  de- 
lays, technicalities,  prejudice,  political  ambition, 
lack  of  courage,  ignorance,  laziness,  corrupt 
tion,  mediaevalism,  are  some  of  the  charges 
hurled  at  them  from  every  quarter.  Whether 
or  not  we  believe  any  or  all  of  these  complaints 
to  be  well  founded,  we  must  admit  what  is  al- 
most equally  portentous,  that  they  are  sincerely 
made  by  a  large  and  increasing  number  of  per- 


164  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

sons.  There  is  every  reason,  therefore,  for  the 
closest  analysis  of  the  situation  to  determine, 
if  possible,  a  means  of  restoring  the  courts  to 
the  affectionate  regard  of  the  people.  Little 
can  be  done  by  reciting  like  the  chorus  of  a 
Greek  tragedy,  "The  courts  must  be  respected." 
The  days  of  magic  and  hocus  pocus  have  gone 
by.  The  only  way  in  which  an  institution  can 
be  made  to  be  respected  is  to  make  it  respect- 
able in  fact  and  seeming. 

At  the  first  glance  it  is  apparent  that  the 
criticisms  of  our  courts  may  be  segregated  into 
two  main  groups.    It  is  charged  that : 

1.  They  have  a  bias  toward  the  rights  of 
property. 

2.  They  are  slow  and  inefficient. 

Let  us  carry  our  examination  a  little  further 
into  the  nature  and  causes  of  these  widely  dif- 
ferent charges. 

The  accusation  that  the  courts  show  a  bias 
toward  wealth  is  based  especially  on  their  de- 
cisions in  two  important  classes  of  cases:  (a) 
Constitutional  questions,  and  (b)  Injunctions  in 
labor  disputes.  It  is  secondarily  founded  on 
the  inevitable  hardship  on  poor  litigants  of  a 
slow  and  inefficient  administration  of  justice, 
with  which  we  shall  deal  later. 

The  constitutional  decisions  which  are  most 
commonly  cited  have  to  do  with  the  Fifth  and 


OUR  JUDICIAL  DILEMMA         165 

Fourteenth  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  and  the  similar  provisions 
which  have  found  their  way  into  our  state  con- 
stitutions. The  Fifth  Amendment  forbade  the 
United  States,  and  the  Fourteenth  the  several 
States  to  deprive  any  person  *'of  life,  liberty 
or  property,  without  due  process  of  law."  To 
this  and  other  provisions  intended  to  protect 
the  individual  from  the  arbitrary  authority  of 
government  the  courts  have  given  a  narrow 
technical  interpretation  which,  under  our 
changed  economic  conditions,  has  favored  the 
rights  of  property  as  against  the  rights  of  man. 
Unconscious  of  their  responsibility  as  cus- 
todians, not  only  of  the  fixity  of  the  law,  but 
of  its  growth,  our  courts  have  made  what  were 
intended  as  bulwarks  of  individual  liberty  the 
very  means  of  corporate  oppression.  Take  the 
Braceville  Coal  Company  Case  (147  111.  66) 
in  which  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois  held  that 
a  law  requiring  the  payment  of  wages  weekly 
by  a  certain  class  of  coi^orations  violated  the 
liberty  of  and  denied  the  equal  protection  of 
the  laws  to  the  corporations  affected.  This, 
in  the  face  of  the  well-known  fact  that  the  de- 
ferred wage  systems  of  many  corporations  re- 
duce their  employees  to  a  condition  of  practical 
peonage.  The  interpretation  of  ''due  process 
of  law"  has  been  equally  productive  of  injus- 


166     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

tice.  The  most  flagrant  instance,  perhaps,  is 
the  decision  in  Ives  vs.  South  Buffalo  Railway 
Company  (201  N.  Y.  271).  The  legislature  of 
New  York  had  adopted  an  act  providing  for  the 
payment  of  a  compensation  by  employers  to 
employees  for  injuries  received  in  certain  haz- 
ardous occupations,  without  reference  to  the 
negligence  of  either  party.  The  Court  of  Ap- 
peals declared  unconstitutional  this  change  in 
the  basis  of  liability  for  damages,  on  the  ground 
that  it  deprived  the  railway  company  of  its 
property  ** without  due  process  of  law."  The 
law  had  been  solemnly  enacted.  The  question 
of  whether  anything,  and  if  so  how  much,  was 
to  be  paid  as  damages  was  to  be  settled  by  a 
judicial  process.  There  was  no  arbitrary  seiz- 
ure of  any  one's  property,  merely  a  new  bur- 
den put  upon  property;  and  to  do  this  in  any 
way  whatsoever  was,  in  the  opinion  of  the  court, 
not  due  process  of  law.  If  men  or  corporations 
can  acquire  by  long  usage  a  property  right  in 
a  given  liability  for  damages,  the  law  has 
reached  an  alarming  condition  of  fixity.  It  is 
not  surprising,  therefore,  that  we  find  a  pro- 
fessor of  law,  himself  a  product  of  the  con- 
servative atmosphere  of  Harvard,  declaring: 
*'The  Fourteenth  Amendment,  metamorphosed 
by  judicial  sleight-of-hand,  now  embodies,  not 
a  bill  of  human  rights,  but  a  broad  bill  of  prop- 


OUR  JUDICIAL  DILEMMA         167 

erty  privileges,  of  vested  rights  to  exploit 
others."^  It  is  fair  to  conclude,  therefore, 
that,  if  the  millions  of  our  fellow-countrymen 
who  share  this  view  are  wrong,  at  least  there  is 
strong  reason  for  their  state  of  mind. 

Turning  now  to  the  second  category  of 
charges  which  we  summed  up  in  the  statement 
that  the  courts  are  slow  and  inefficient,  we  will 
find  the  complaints  equally  justified.  Cases 
like  that  of  Williams  v.  Delaware  and  Lacka- 
waima  Railway  Company,  in  which  a  brakeman 
injured  in  1882,  after  six  appeals  and  five  new 
trials,  got  final  judgment  in  1904,  are  perhaps 
extreme,  though  by  no  means  untypical  of  the 
real  situation.  The  crowded  dockets  in  most 
centers  of  population  make  the  delay  preceding 
a  first  trial  a  matter  of  months,  even  in  the  case 
of  the  most  willing  litigants,  while  a  defendant 
who  seeks  opportunities  for  delay  may  almost 
indefinitely  postpone  his  day  of  reckoning. 
The  motive  for  so  doing,  especially  in  the  case 
of  great  corporations  and  liability  insurance 
companies,  is  obvious.  A  very  simple  com- 
putation will  show  that  the  postponement  of 
the  payment  of  a  claim  for  ten  years,  or  even 
for  five,  will  net  a  substantial  interest  return 
to  the  defendant.  Further,  it  forces  the  poor 
litigant  to  compromise,  if  it  does  not  discour- 

1  H.  W.  Ballatine,  Case  and  Comment,  September,  1912. 


168  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

age  liim  into  utter  abandonment  of  his  claim. 
To  delay  justice  is  to  deny  it  to  the  poor,  and, 
in  effect,  to  sell  it  to  the  rich  and  powerful. 
The  limit  of  legal  absurdity  was  probably 
reached  in  the  celebrated  Jones  County  Calf 
Case  from  Kansas.  The  original  casus  belli 
was  four  calves  worth  twenty-five  dollars. 
The  case  ran  over  twenty-five  years,  went  to 
the  Supreme  Court  four  times,  gave  rise  to 
$75,000  of  lawyers'  fees  and  $2,800  of  costs,  all 
to  secure  $1000  as  a  final  judgment.  Only  the 
well-to-do  can  afford  such  an  orgy  of  "justice.'* 
In  criminal  cases,  the  effect  of  delays  is  even 
more  serious  than  in  civil  cases.  We  have 
thrown  about  the  accused  a  profusion  of  con- 
stitutional and  legal  guarantees  of  his  right  to 
a  speedy  trial.  The  community,  however,  has 
no  such  protection.  It  is  seldom  that  a  speedy 
trial  is  favorable  to  the  interests  of  a  guilty 
person.  The  longer  the  time  between  the  crime 
and  the  day  in  court  the  more  difficult  becomes 
the  task  of  proving  affirmatively  the  guilt  of  the 
prisoner.  Witnesses  die,  move  away,  memories 
are  dimmed, — circumstances  which  in  a  civil  ac- 
tion affect  one  side  as  much  as  another,  but 
which  in  a  criminal  case  only  prejudice  the 
prosecution.  The  tedious  months  of  jury  draw- 
ing in  the  Calhoun  case  in  San  Francisco,  the 
interminable  prosecution  of  Harry  Thaw,  are 


OUR  JUDICIAL  DILEMMA         169 

only  notable  examples  of  tlie  leaden-footed 
march  of  justice.  When,  as  frequently  hap- 
pens, a  case  is  sent  back  by  the  higher  courts 
for  retrial  all  the  difficulties  of  the  state's 
attorney  are  further  exaggerated.  Indeed, 
criminal  prosecution  is  so  slow  and  uncertain  in 
the  United  States  as  materially  to  weaken  the 
deterrent  influence  of  punishment  on  crime. 
Criminologists  unite  in  ascribing  to  the  crimi- 
nal, as  one  of  his  most  typical  characteristics, 
a  childish  failure  to  foresee  anything  beyond 
the  immediate  consequences  of  his  acts. 
Hence  every  delay  in  the  infliction  of  punish- 
ment detracts  from  its  moral  effect,  a  loss  which 
can  not  be  redeemed  by  any  subsequent  sever- 
ity. The  prevalence  of  crime,  especially  mur- 
der and  other  crimes  of  violence,  in  this  coun- 
try as  compared  with  England  and  European 
countries  is  appalling.  The  awful  retributions 
of  Judge  LjTich  are,  too,  but  a  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  failure  of  justice  to  follow  hot 
foot  on  crime.  Lynch  law  is  swift,  if  erratic, 
but  its  results  as  an  in  terrorem  are  purchased 
at  the  too  great  cost  of  the  general  degradation 
of  the  community. 

There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among  men 
who  know,  as  to  the  universality  and  dire  con- 
sequences of  the  law's  delays.  Natural  con- 
servatives like  ex-President  Taft  and  radicals 


170     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

like  Colonel  Roosevelt  alike  are  caustic  in  their 
criticism  of  tardy  justice.  Wrecks  of  home, 
family  and  life,  itself,  are  strewn  as  thick  be- 
hind our  deliberate  judicial  Juggernaut  as  they 
were  behind  the  Chancery  which  Dickens  long 
ago  attempted  to  reform  by  caricature.  There 
can  be  no  question  that  justice  is  slow  even  to 
the  extent  of  its  denial  to  those  who  need  it 
most. 

We  are,  therefore,  ready  to  return  a  ''true 
bill"  against  our  judicial  system.  There  are 
two  counts  in  the  indictment:  first,  that  they 
have  come  under  well  founded  suspicion  of  a 
bias  toward  wealth  and,  second,  that  beyond  the 
peradventure  of  a  doubt,  they  are  egregiously 
snail-paced.  Let  us  now  go  to  trial  on  these 
issues.  Our  first  discovery  mil  be  that  it  is 
the  exercise  of  a  diiferent  kind  of  power  which 
gives  rise  to  each  category  of  complaints.  The 
interpretation  of  the  constitution — law-vetoing 
on  grounds  of  unconstitutionality — is  essen- 
tially a  political  act.  Several  very  learned  gen- 
tlemen have  recently  contributed  their  exten- 
sive views  as  to  the  assumption  of  this  power 
by  the  courts.  Their  opinions  are  various  and 
very  interesting, — as  historical  conjectures. 
For  our  present  purpose,  however,  it  makes  lit- 
tle difference  whether  the  courts  stole  the  power 
or  received  it  legitimately  from  the  hands  of 


OUR  JUDICIAL  DILEMMA         171 

constitution  makers.  The  important  thing  is 
that  they  have  it  and  that  their  early  awe  in 
its  presence  has  given  place  to  a  nonchalance 
comparable  to  that  with  which  an  experienced 
miner  juggles  dynamite.  Whereas,  at  first, 
they  held  statutes  unconstitutional  only  in  very 
clear  cases,  and  then  with  manifest  reluctance, 
they  now  do  not  scruple  to  reverse  the  policy 
of  the  normal  law-making  bodies  on  grounds  the 
most  technical.  It  is  idle  to  say  that  in  so  do- 
ing they  are  simply  applying  the  law  and  em- 
ploying the  ordinary  means  of  judicial  inter- 
pretation. From  the  very  beginning,  public 
opinion  in  the  United  States  has  divided  on  con- 
stitutional questions.  Toward  questions  of 
constitutional  interpretation,  a  judge's  attitude 
is  determined  by  his  general  habits  of  political 
thinking.  Federalist  John  Marshall  gave  us 
McCulloch  vs.  Maryland;  and  Democratic 
Taney,  Dred  Scott  vs.  Sanford.  A  shift  in  the 
political  complexion  of  the  Supreme  Court  made 
a  previously  constitutional  income  tax  uncon- 
stitutional. The  general  attitude  of  the  judge 
toward  modern  economic  and  social  problems 
determines  his  opinion  upon  the  constitutional- 
ity of  social  legislation.  In  the  case  of  Loch- 
ner  vs.  New  York  (198  U.  S.  45)  the  majority 
of  the  court  decided  that  a  New  York  statute 
prohibiting  the  employment  of  men  in  bakeries 


172  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

more  than  ten  hours  per  day  was  not  a  proper 
health  regulation  and  deprived  employers  and 
employees  of  their  liberty  of  contract.  In  de- 
livering the  opinion  of  the  court,  Justice  Peck- 
ham  said,  ''Statutes  of  the  nature  of  that  under 
review,  limiting  the  hours  in  which  grown  and 
intelligent  men  may  labor  to  earn  their  living, 
are  mere  meddlesome  interferences  with  the 
rights  of  the  individual."  Contrast  this  ex- 
pression of  narrow  individualism  with  the 
broader  social  policy  of  Justice  Holmes,  dis- 
senting, who  said:  *'I  think  the  word  liberty 
in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  is  perverted 
when  it  is  held  to  prevent  the  natural  outcome 
of  a  dominant  opinion,  unless  it  can  be  said 
that  a  rational  and  fair  man  necessarily  would 
admit  that  the  statute  proposed  would  infringe 
fundamental  principles  as  they  have  been  un- 
derstood by  the  traditions  of  our  people  and  our 
law.  It  does  not  need  research  to  show  that 
no  such  sweeping  condemnation  can  be  passed 
upon  the  statute  before  us."  In  each  case  the 
judge  was  giving  expression  to  his  social  rather 
than  his  legal  opinion.  In  almost  every  consti- 
tutional question  the  decision  rests  on  social 
and  political  grounds.  Whether  the  judges  will 
or  no  the  policy  of  the  law  is  the  real  ratio 
decidendi. 
In  the  decision  of  ordinary  cases — the  cases 


OUR  JUDICIAL  DILEMMA         173 

in  which  the  delays  of  the  law  constitute  that 
flagrant  abuse  on  which  we  have  animadverted, 
— there  is  no  legitimate  political  influence. 
The  ordinary  administration  of  justice  is  sim- 
ply a  highly  specialized  and  technical  branch 
of  general  administration.  The  chief  qualities 
necessary  to  its  successful  conduct  are  training 
and  that  skill  which  comes  from  experience. 
A  thorough  knowledge  of  the  law  and  a  judicial 
temperament  are  the  essential  equipment  of  the 
judge.  It  is  the  unfortunate  absence  of  these 
qualities,  especially  among  the  trial  judges  of 
our  state  courts,  which  is  the  chief  cause  of 
slow  justice.  It  is  the  lack  of  power  among 
trial  judges  more  than  anything  else  which 
gives  opportunity  for  delays.  It  is  their  lack 
of  training  and  experience  which  leads  us  to 
deny  them  adequate  power.  Take  for  example 
our  jury  drawing,  all  that  keeps  us  from  Eng- 
lish expedition  is  that  our  judges  have  less 
power,  *and  much  less  confidence  in  the  use  of 
the  power  they  have,  than  their  English  com- 
peers. In  the  Federal  courts  where  the  au- 
thority of  the  judge  is  great  the  speed  at  every 
stage  of  the  case  is  proportionately  accelerated. 
In  the  matter  of  time-wasting  appeals  it  is 
argued  that  we  cannot  give  to  our  low-grade 
trial  judges  the  powers  of  final  decision  which 
are  given  trial  judges  in  England.    It  is  true, 


174     GOVERNMENT  FOB  THE  PEOPLE 

also,  that  tlie  inartistic  work  of  trial  judges 
tempts  the  higher  courts  into  the  realms  of 
technicality,  a  field  which  seems  highly  con- 
genial to  them.  When  the  Supreme  Court 
of  California  holds  that  an  indictment  for 
*'larcey"  is  bad  because  there  is  no  such 
crime  known  to  the  laws  of  the  State,  or  that 
an  indictment  for  the  murder  of  '*Ah  Fong" 
is  bad  because  it  contains  no  allegation  that 
Ah  Fong  is  a  human  being;  when  the  Court  of 
Criminal  Appeals  of  Texas  says  that  a  verdict 
spelled  *'guity"  is  bad  but  one  spelled 
**guily"  is  good;  when  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Missouri  declares  that  ''instantly"  will  not  do 
as  a  substitute  for  "then  and  there,"  we  have 
a  situation  arising  in  large  measure  from  the 
distmst  which  appellate  courts  have  of  their 
inferiors.  If  we  would  enhance  the  authority 
of  the  lower  courts  we  can  nomse  do  it  but  by 
improving  their  personnel — its  average  of 
training  and  experience. 

Now  iDolitical  power  naturally  suggests  politi- 
cal responsibility,  while  a  demand  for  expert 
training  and  experience  carries  with  it  the 
idea  of  careful  selection  and  freedom  from  di- 
rect political  responsibility.  To  the  first,  popu- 
lar election  and  even  recall  are  essential.  To 
the  second,  popular  election  is  absolutely  de- 
structive.   Here,  then,  is  our  dilemma.    How 


OUR  JUDICIAL  DILEMMA         175 

may  we  have  judges  at  once  responsible  for 
political  power  and  expert  in  judicial  adminis- 
tration? How  may  we  avoid  both  the  frying- 
pan  and  the  fire?  If  we  have  political  judges, 
they  will  administer  the  law  like  amateurs.  If 
we  have  judges  appointed  for  good  behavior, 
we  will  have  on  their  part  more  and  more  class 
bias.  Indeed  the  dilemma  is  a  very  real  one. 
From  such  a  situation  there  is  but  one  escape — 
destroy  the  cause  of  the  dilemma. 

If  we  remove  from  the  courts  their  political 
duty  of  holding  statutes  unconstitutional,  we 
can  then  with  safety  make  our  judges  ap- 
pointive, pay  them  large  salaries  and  give  then 
a  permanent  tenure.  In  no  other  way  can  we 
have  efl&cient  courts  and  speedy  justice.  Vari- 
ous methods  of  relieving  the  courts  of  their 
political  responsibilities  have  been  suggested. 
It  is  done  to  considerable  extent  by  adoption  of 
the  initiative  which  makes  the  constitution  as 
amendable  as  any  law.  Little  harm  can  be 
done  by  postponing  a  measure  of  reform  long 
enough  for  a  popular  vote  to  put  the  seal  of  con- 
stitutionality upon  it.  Mr.  Eoosevelt's  awk- 
ward phrase  **the  recall  of  decisions'*  con- 
cealed, for  many,  an  idea  of  genuine  merit. 
There  is  nothing  revolutionary  in  submitting 
to  the  people  a  statute  declared  by  the  courts 
to  be  unconstitutional  and  making  it  part  of  the 


176     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

constitution  if  tliey  give  it  tlieir  approval.  It 
is  only  a  new  aspect  of  the  constitutional  refer- 
endum by  which  the  people  have  made  and  al- 
tered our  so-called  fundamental  laws  for  a  cen- 
tury. If  a  legislature  may  submit  a  constitu- 
tional amendment  directly  to  the  people,  it  is 
scarcely  more  radical  to  submit  one  to  them  in- 
directly by  way  of  an  ordinary  statute  and  the 
courts  of  law.  Where  the  initiative  exists  there 
can  be  no  serious  need  of  such  a  referendum. 
Of  course  from  this  point  of  view  the  recall 
of  judges  is  unwise  and  unnecessary.  As  long 
as  the  judges  are  elective  officers  there  is  no 
reason  for  excepting  them  from  the  dangers 
which  dog  the  path  of  other  elective  officers. 
When  we  remove  the  reason  for  judges  being 
elective  we  remove  at  the  same  time  all  reason 
for  their  recall.  By  this  method  we  avoid  those 
evils  which  lurk  in  a  judicial  system  where 
every  man  on  the  bench  has  his  eye  cocked  on 
a  coming  day  of  election. 

'* Justice,'*  said  Webster,  **is  the  great  end 
of  man  on  earth."  Justice  requires  efficient 
courts.  We  can  never  have  swift  and  efficient 
administration  of  justice  from  courts  selected 
on  the  basis  of  political  considerations.  Let 
us  free  our  courts  from  their  impossible  bur- 
den and  enable  them  to  dispense  justice  with  an 
equal  hand. 


OUR  JUDICIAL  DILEMMA         177 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Alger,  G.  W.,  "The  Old  Law  and  the  New  Order." 

Baldwin,  S.  E.,  ''The  American  Judiciary." 

Ballantine,  H.  W.,  "Labor  Legislation  and  the 
Judicial  Veto,"  in  Ca^e  and  Comment,  September, 
1912. 

Beard,  Charles  A.,  "The  Supreme  Court  and  the 
Constitution." 

BouDiN,  L.  B.,  "Government  by  Judiciary,"  Political 
Science  Quarterly,  June,  1911. 

Connolly,  C.  P.,  "Big  Business  and  the  Bench," 
Everybody's,  February-July,  1912. 

Fink,  A.,  "Recall  of  Judges,"  North  American,  May, 
1911. 

Frederick,  K.  T,,  "Significance  of  the  Recall  of 
Judicial  Decisions,"  Atlantic,  July,  1912. 

GooDNOw,  F.  J.,  "Social  Reform  and  the  Constitu- 
tion." 

GooDNOW,  F.  J.,  "Legislative  Power  of  Congress  un- 
der the  Judicial  Article  of  the  Constitution," 
Political  Science  Quarterly,  December,  1910. 

Greely,  L.  M.,  "Changing  Attitude  of  the  Courts 
towards  Social  Legislation,"  Conference  of  Chari- 
ties and  Corrections,  1910,  pp.  391-405. 

Guthrie,  W.  D.,  "Constitutional  Morality,"  North 
American,  August,  1912. 

Haines,  C.  G.,  "The  American  Doctrine  of  Judicial 
Supremacy. ' ' 

Hamill,  C.  H.,  "Constitutional  Chaos,"  Forum, 
July,  1913, 


178  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

JuDSON,  F.  N.,  "The  Judiciary  and  the  People." 
LuRTON,  H.  H.,  "Government  of  Law  or  a  Govern- 
ment of  Men,"  North  American,  January,  1911. 
Myers,  Gustavus,  "History  of  the  Supreme  Court 

of  the  United  States." 
Ransom,  W.  L.,  "Majority  Rule  and  the  Judiciary." 
Roe,  Gilbert  E.,  "Our  Judicial  Oligarchy." 
Roosevelt,   T.,   "Charter  of  Democracy,"   Outlook, 
Feb.  24,  1912.     "Judges  and  Progress,"  Outlook, 
January  6,  1912.     "People  and  the  Courts,"  Out- 
look, Aug.    17,   1912.    "Right   of   the   People   to 
Rule,"  Outlook,  March  23,  1912. 
Root,  E.,  "Importance  of  an  Independent  Judiciary," 

Independent,  April  4,  1912. 
Smalley,  H.   S.,  "Nullifying  the  Law  by  Judicial 

Interpretation,"  Atlantic,  April,  1911. 
Smith,  J.  Allen,  "The  Spirit  of  American  Govern- 
ment." 
Storey,   Moorfield,    "The   Reform   of   Legal   Pro- 
cedure." 


M.  D.  (HARV'D) 
OITT  MBAI/FH  DOPT. 

DISORGANIZATION    OF   STATE   ADMINISTRATION 

There  is  one  subject  which  has  almost  entirely 
escaped  the  notice  of  the  principal  critics  of 
American  government.  This  is  the  peculiar  or- 
ganization of  the  administrative  side  of  our 
state  government.  A  great  deal  has  been  writ- 
ten about  state  legislatures  and  state  courts, 
and  about  the  power  and  activity  of  the  gov- 
ernors of  States,  but  very  little  has  been  said 
about  state  administration.  The  advocates  of 
the  short  ballots  have  touched  the  subject,  in 
so  far  as  the  elective  state  officers  are  con- 
cerned, but  this  is  only  a  beginning.  We  have 
all  known  that  state  government  is,  compara- 
tively speaking,  inefficient.  It  is  admittedly  in- 
ferior to  the  efficiency  displayed  in  private  busi- 
ness, and  even  to  that  of  our  national  govern- 
ment and  our  better  organized  cities.  In  gen- 
eral, we  have  undertaken  to  explain  this  fact  by 
the  inferiority  of  our  legislatures,  or,  at  fur- 
thest, by  the  consequences  of  the  long  ballot. 
The  worst  feature,  however,  of  state  govern- 

179 


180  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

ment  is  tlie  lack  of  centralized  responsibility  in 
the  state  administration. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  principal  state  officers 
are  elected  by  the  people,  and  so  removed  from 
the  control  of  the  nominal  chief  of  the  State. 
Further,  there  is  no  correlation  of  their  func- 
tions except  as  their  good  nature  and  good 
sense  may  dictate.    Their  only  responsibility 
is  to  the  people.    We  have  seen  how  ineffective 
this  responsibility  is.    It  is  true  that  a  very 
strong  governor  may,  if  the  other  state  officers 
belong  to  his  own  party  or  faction,  morally 
dominate  them  sufficiently  to  produce  some  co- 
herence of  administration,  but  it  is  only  such 
a  combination  of  circumstances  which  can  pro- 
duce this   result.    Altogether  our  long  state 
ballot  removes  six  or  eight  of  our  most  impor- 
tant departments  from  any  possible  part  in  a 
symmetrical  scheme  of  administration.    When 
we  come  to  the  appointive  officers  who  are,  of 
course,  very  numerous,  we  find  a  condition  of 
confusion  almost  as  serious  in  kind  and  even 
more  significant  in  extent.    Some  of  them  are 
appointed  by  the  Governor  outright,  and  some 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  state 
senate.    Many  officers  have  fixed  terms  with  no 
provision  for  removal  except  by  the  courts  or 
by  impeachment,  methods  by  which  the  most 
serious  offenses  only  can  be  reached  j  others 


STATE  ADMINISTRATION         181 

are  removable  only  with  tlie  consent  of  the  state 
senate;  while  a  small,  hut  happily  growing, 
class  are  removable  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
Governor.  No  officer  can  be  said  to  control 
his  subordinates  unless  he  has  the  power  of 
removal.  The  power  to  select  officers  as  va- 
cancies occur  is  in  itself  an  important  part  of 
the  political  power  of  the  Governor,  but  it  leaves 
him  helpless  to  regulate  the  administration  at 
any  given  moment.  It  is  apparent  that  the 
governor,  although  he  is  by  the  constitution  and 
the  terms  of  his  oath  of  office  supposed  to  care 
for  the  faithful  execution  of  the  laws,  really 
controls  only  a  limited  number  of  his  subor- 
dinates. Many  readers  will  at  once  recall  the 
effort  of  Governor  Hughes  of  New  York  to  re- 
move Insurance  Commissioner  Kelsey  whom 
the  insurance  investigation  conducted  by  Gov- 
ernor Hughes  had  shown  to  be  incompetent. 
The  Senate,  under  the  leadership  of  its  machine 
Eepublican  bosses  rallied  to  the  support  of  Mr. 
Kelsey,  and  Governor  Hughes  was  denied  the 
right  to  direct  the  policy  of  that  department  in 
which  he  was  most  interested.  By  no  conceiv- 
able twist  of  the  imagination  could  Governor 
Hughes  be  held  responsible  for  the  Insurance 
Department  under  Mr.  Kelsey.  It  could  be 
theoretically  assumed  that  Mr.  Kelsey  was  re- 
sponsible to  the  Senate  and  the  Senate  to  the 


182  GOVERNMENT  FOB  THE  PEOPLE 

people,  but  it  is  obvious  that,  as  a  practical  mat- 
ter, he  was  responsible  to  nobody. 

The  difficulty  of  which  we  have  been  speaking 
would  be  much  less  if  all  state  officers  retired 
at  the  beginning  of  the  term  of  each  succeeding 
Governor.     Such,   however,   is   not   the    case. 
Their    tenns    of    office    expire    at    intervals 
throughout  the  terai  of  the  Governor.    He  can 
appoint  but  a  few  at  a  time,  and  never  enough 
to    stamp    upon   the    administration   his    own 
policy.     The  characteristic  feature  of  all  state 
administrative  systems  is  the  board,  the  mem- 
bers of  which  retire  in  rotation.     The  manage- 
ment of  state  institutions,  reformatory,  chari- 
table and  educational,  is  generally  entrusted 
to  such  boards,  and  the  Governor  can  only  after 
some  lapse  of  time  appoint  enough  members  of 
these  boards  to  even  insure  that  they  shall  be 
of  his  general  way  of  thinking,  much  less  to 
control  them.     The  result  is  that  the  Governor 
fixes  the  personnel  of  the  administration,  in 
part,  for  his  own  term,  and,  in  part,  for  that  of 
his   successor,   a   system  which  it  is  hard  to 
justify  upon  any  principles  of  administrative 
science. 

It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  a  private  busi- 
ness being  conducted  on  such  a  principle.  In 
private  business,  there  is  never  a  break  in  the 
chain  of  responsibility  between  the  employer 


STATE  ADMINISTRATION         183 

and  employee.  In  the  corporation,  from  stock- 
holder to  directors,  from  directors  to  general 
manager,  from  general  manager  to  his  various 
subordinates,  and  so  on  down  to  the  office  boy 
and  the  scrubwoman,  there  is  a  regular  hier- 
archy of  authority  and  absolute  power  of  disci- 
pline. It  is  possible  to  hold  each  department 
head  responsible  for  what  takes  place  in  his 
department,  to  hold  the  general  manager  re- 
sponsible for  the  general  conduct  of  the  busi- 
ness, to  hold  the  directors  responsible  for  their 
choice  of  the  general  manager,  and  thus  to  put 
into  the  hands  of  the  stockholders  ultimately  the 
power  to  protect  their  own  interests.  Under 
our  system  of  state  administration,  the  Gov- 
ernor is  the  only  state  officer  whose  responsi- 
bility to  the  people  is  at  all  effective.  The 
other  elective  officers  divide  with  him  the  execu- 
tive power,  possessing  each  in  his  own  depart- 
ment the  power  of  appointment  and  of  control 
of  his  appointees,  subject,  however,  to  a  mythi- 
cal control  by  the  people.  The  Governor  has, 
it  is  true,  a  great  power  of  appointment;  but, 
since  he  can  exercise  it  at  fixed  intervals  only, 
and  it  is  accompanied  by  no  adequate  power 
of  removal,  it  is  impossible  to  hold  him  re- 
sponsible for  the  conduct  of  even  his  own  ap- 
pointees. Much  less  is  it  possible  to  hold  him 
responsible  for  the  acts  of  a  great  number  of 


184  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

public  servants  who  are  the  appointees  of  his 
predecessor.  The  wonderful  thing  is  that  with 
such  a  system  we  can  have  any  kind  of  a  state 
administration  at  all.  It  is  only  the  American 
faculty  of  getting  along,  and  the  wealth  which 
enables  us  to  pay  for  inefficient  service,  that  has 
kept  the  Ship  of  State  off  the  rocks  so  long. 

The  disorganization  of  our  state  administra- 
tion is  in  strong  contrast  to  the  highly  cen- 
tralized form  of  Federal  administration.  The 
President  appoints,  in  the  first  instance,  the 
heads  of  departments,  and,  in  the  second  place, 
all  the  other  officers  possessing  any  consider- 
able degree  of  discretion.  Every  officer  whom 
he  appoints  is  removable  at  his  pleasure.  It 
is  true  that  the  President's  power  of  appoint- 
ment has  been  somewhat  limited  by  the  princi- 
ple of  senatorial  courtesy,  which  obliges  him 
to  accept  the  suggestions  of  United  States  Sen- 
ators of  his  own  party  as  to  appointments 
made  from  their  States.  This  limitation  is 
much  less  effective  on  a  strong  president  than 
on  a  weak  one,  and  it  is  probably  declining  in 
importance.  The  controversy  between  Con- 
gress and  President  Johnson  resulted  in  a  tem- 
porary suspension  of  the  President's  power  of 
removal,  the  famous  Tenure  of  Office  Act  mak- 
ing it  necessary  to  obtain  the  consent  of  the 
Senate  to  a  removal.    This  policy,  however, 


STATE  ADMINISTRATION         185 

was  abandoned  when  Congress  and  the  Presi- 
dent came  to  be  on  good  tenns  again,  and  it  is 
not  likely  to  be  repeated.  The  officers  ap- 
pointed by  the  heads  of  departments,  who,  of 
course,  constitute  by  far  the  greater  number 
of  officers,  are  almost  altogether  named  under 
civil  service  regulations  on  the  basis  of  com- 
petitive examinations.  The  civil  service  regu- 
lations, however,  have  put  no  limitation  upon 
the  power  of  removal,  so  that  every  officer  in  the 
service,  from  Secretary  of  State  to  messenger 
boy,  is  removable  either  by  the  President  di- 
rectly or  by  some  one  whom  the  President  can 
remove.  The  result  is  that  the  President  can 
control  the  administration  in  its  least  details, 
if  necessary.  Of  course,  it  is  physically  im- 
possible to  direct  the  details  of  the  whole  ad- 
ministration, but  if  news  of  inefficiency  or  ill- 
doing  comes  to  him  from  any  quarter  of  the 
countiy,  he  possesses  the  immediate  power  to 
cure  the  evil.  He  may,  therefore,  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  whatever  occurs  throughout  the 
whole  range  of  the  administration.  The  ad- 
ministrative seiwice  of  the  United  States  is,  in 
consequence,  relatively  efficient.  There  is  no 
confusion  of  authority,  no  division  of  responsi- 
bility; the  whole  system  is  organized  on  lines 
calculated  to  produce  the  speedy  and  economi- 
cal dispatch  of  social  business.     The  respect 


186  GOVEENMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

whicli  we  liave  for  Federal  aiitliority  contrasted 
with  our  apparent  disrespect  of  state  authority, 
well  illustrates  the  difference  in  result  of  the 
two  systems  of  organization.  One  notable  in- 
stance is  the  unanimity  witli  which  liquor  sell- 
ers, even  in  Prohibition  States,  pay  their  in- 
ternal revenue  tax  while  boldly  violating  the 
state  law. 

Another  cause  which  contributes  to  the  in- 
efficiency of  state  administration  is  the  almost 
universal  application  to  it  of  the  spoils  system. 
In  our  national  government  the  civil  service 
regulations  prescribe  admission  to  the  majority 
of  governmental  positions  on  the  basis  of  com- 
petitive examinations.  Of  those  members  of 
the  United  States  service  who  are  not  subject 
to  examination,  the  great  majority  are  labor- 
ers, mechanics  and  fourth-class  postmasters — 
positions  to  which  a  competitive  examination  is 
scarcely  applicable.  Many  of  our  cities  have 
more  or  less  effective  civil  service  regulations 
in  force,  but  only  a  few  of  our  States  have  ap- 
plied the  system  to  their  administrative  service. 
The  result  is  that  there  are  no  recognized  stand- 
ards for  appointment  to  state  positions,  and  no 
security  of  tenure.  Every  change  of  adminis- 
tration means  a  change  in  the  personnel  of  the 
service. 

Under  such  circumstances,  it  is  impossible  to 


STATE  ADMINISTRATION         187 

get  men  and  women  of  the  best  type  to  accept 
state  appointments.  Few  people  who  are  ca- 
pable of  holding  well  paid  positions  of  a  per- 
manent character  with  a  private  firm  or  cor- 
poration are  willing  to  give  them  up  for  the 
sake  of  a  few  years  at  most  on  the  state  payroll. 
In  consequence,  our  state  servants  fall  much  be- 
low the  standards  of  private  business.  Fur- 
thermore the  political  value  of  such  positions 
has  led  to  their  creation  without  due  regard 
to  their  administrative  necessity.  Department 
after  department  is  overmanned.  This  leads 
to  idleness  and  that  mischief  to  which  idle  hands 
are  prone. 

It  is  highly  desirable,  therefore,  that  state 
civil  service  laws  be  enacted  providing  for 
merit  appointments  on  a  basis  of  the  comple- 
tion of  a  recognized  course  of  study  or  the 
passage  of  an  examination.  Strict  regulations 
should  prevent  the  interference  in  politics  of 
those  in  the  service.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
power  of  removal  by  the  appointing  authority 
should  not  be  restricted  more  than  to  require 
the  filing  of  a  statement  of  the  reasons  for  the 
removal  in  each  case.  The  tenure  of  the  in- 
cumbent is  sufficiently  protected  if  the  appoint- 
ing authority  is  not  free  to  put  into  the  place 
thus  vacated  his  own  choice  for  the  position. 
He  is  not  likely  to  displace  a  good  man  simply 


188  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

for  the  privilege  of  filling  a  position  from  tlie 
first  three  names  submitted  to  him  by  a  civil 
service  commission.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
power  to  remove  an  inefficient  officer  should  be 
instant  and  complete.  To  make  it  necessary, 
as  some  civil  service  laws  do,  practically  to 
prove  by  legal  evidence  that  the  person  re- 
moved has  committed  something  tantamount 
to  a  crime,  is  simply  to  enact  incompetency  into 
the  service.  That  liighly  pampered  individual, 
the  New  York  policeman,  whom  nothing  short 
of  judicial  proceedings  can  ultimately  force  out 
of  his  place,  is  a  striking  example  in  point. 

The  necessary  reorganization  of  our  state 
administration  should  be,  in  the  first  place,  by 
making  all  of  the  elective  state  offices  except  the 
Governor  and  Lieutenant  Governor,  and  possi- 
bly the  Controller,  appointive  at  the  pleasure  of 
the  Governor.  The  various  branches  of  the  ad- 
ministration should  be  classified  into  groups  or 
departments.  At  the  head  of  each  of  these 
departments  should  be  an  officer  appointed  by 
the  Governor  without  any  civil  service  require- 
ments whatever,  removable  at  his  pleasure,  and 
a  member  of  his  official  family  or  cabinet. 
These  officers  should  be  the  direct  personal  ad- 
herents and  friends  of  the  Governor.  They 
should  be  regarded  as  political  officers  and  their 
duty  should  be  to  assist  the  Governor  sympa- 


STATE  ADMINISTRATION         189 

thetically  in  the  administration  of  state  affairs. 
Each  of  them  should  be  allowed  a  confidential 
deputy  or  assistant  to  be  appointed  without  ref- 
erence to  the  civil  service  regulations.  Every 
other  officer  in  the  service  should  be  appointed 
perhaps  in  a  few  instances  by  the  Governor, 
but  in  the  majority  of  cases  by  the  head  of  the 
department  under  strict  civil  service  provisions. 
The  lower  ranges  of  positions  may  be  filled  as 
is  done  under  our  ordinary  type  of  civil  service 
laws.  We  will  discuss  the  method  of  filling  the 
higher  positions  in  the  next  chapter.  Such  a 
system  would  give  proper  coordination  and 
responsibility,  and  by  these  means  we  would 
have  laid  the  foundation  of  efficiency  in  admin- 
istration. 

Below  appears  a  proposed  scheme  for  the  re- 
organization of  the  state  administration: 

A    SUGGESTED    SCHEME    OF    STATE    ADMINISTEATION 

Governor.     (Responsible  to  the  people.) 

Linked  to  the  legislature  by  veto  power. 
Commander  in  chief  of  military.  Possesses 
power  of  pardon.  Appoints  the  following 
heads  of  departments : 

I.  Secretary/  of  State.  (Appointed  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  Governor.  Member 
of  cabinet.) 


190  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

1.  Recording  functions. 

2.  Authentication  of  commissions  and  other 

documents.     (Great  Seal.) 

3.  Licenses  (automobile,  etc.). 

4.  Custodianship    of    Capitol    Building    and 

Grounds  and  of  historical  relics,  parks, 
etc. 

5.  State  printing. 

11.  The  Controller.  (Appointed  at  the  pleas- 
ure of  the  Governor.  Member  of  cabi- 
net.) 

1.  Custody  of  State's  money. 

2.  Auditing. 

3.  Supervision  over  business  efficiency  in  sev- 

eral departments  and  institutions. 

4.  Purchasing  agent  for  all  state  purposes. 

5.  Preparation  of  annual  budget. 

6.  Supervision  over  city  and  county  finance. 

IIL  Secretary  of  Corporations  and  Labor. 
(Appointed  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
Governor.     Member  of  cabinet.) 

1.  Corporation  licensing. 

2.  Railroad  regulation. 

3.  General    corporation    regulation.     (Blue 

Sky  law.) 

4.  Bank  regulation. 

5.  Insurance  regulation. 

6.  Building  and  loan  regulation. 


STATE  ADMINISTRATION         191 

7.  Industrial  accidents  and  insurance. 

8.  Administration  of  labor  legislation. 

IV.  Attorney    General.     (Appointed    at    the 

pleasure  of  the  Governor.     Member 
of  cabinet.) 

V.  Director    of   Public   Health.     (Appointed 

at    the    pleasure    of    the    Governor. 
Member  of  cabinet.) 

VI.  Director   of   Charities   and    Corrections. 

(Appointed   at   the   pleasure  of  the 
Governor.    Member  of  cabinet.) 

1.  Prisons. 

2.  Eeformatories. 

3.  Insane  asylums. 

4.  Homes  for  feeble-minded. 

5.  Charitable     institutions      (as     veteran's 

homes,  etc.). 

6.  Institutions  for  adult  deaf,  dumb  and  blind. 

7.  Supervision  of  local  and  private  charities, 

county  jails,  etc. 

VII.  Director  of  Public  Works.     (Appointed 

at    the    pleasure    of    the    Governor. 
Member  of  cabinet.) 

1.  Building  construction. 

2.  State  highways. 

S.  State-owned    utilities     (docks,    wharves, 
etc). 


192  GOVERNMENT  FOB  THE  PEOPLE 

VIII.  Secretary  of  Natural  Resources.     (Ap- 

pointed at  the  pleasure  of  the  Gov- 
ernor.    Member  of  cabinet.) 

1.  Agriculture  (except  education). 

2.  Mining  Laws. 

3.  Fish  and  game  laws. 

4.  Water  conservation. 

5.  Forestry.     (Including    custody    of    state 

reservations.) 

6.  Veterinary  inspection  laws. 

7.  Horticulture  inspection  laws. 

8.  Land  registration. 

IX.  Board    of   Education.     (Seven   members 

appointed  for  seven  years,  one  retir- 
ing each  year.  Appoints  Superin- 
tendent and  other  officers.) 

1.  General   educational   administration    (ex- 

cept University,  which  should  have  sep- 
arate Board  of  Regents). 

2.  Schools  for  defectives. 

3.  Normal  schools. 

4.  Examinations  for  admission  to  all  profes- 

sions. 

5.  State  library. 


STATE  ADMINISTRATION  193 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bee  Bibliography  under  Chapter  VI. 

Annual  Reports  of  the  United  States  Civil  Service 
Commission. 

Barrows,  D.  P.,  "Reorganization  of  State  Adminis- 
tration in  California,"  California  Law  Review, 
January,  1915. 

Beard,  C.  A.,  "American  Government  and  Politics,'* 
pp.  499-515.  "Readings  in  American  Government 
and  Politics,"  pp.  436-438,  453-456. 

Bryce,  James,  "American  Commonwealth,"  vol.  I, 
chapter  XLI. 

FiNLEY  and  Sanderson,  "American  Executive  and 
Executive  Methods. ' ' 

GooDNOw,  F.  J.,  "Politics  and  Administration." 

Hemenway,  H.  B.,  "The  Organization  of  the  State 
Executive  in  Illinois,"  Illinois  Law  Revieiv,  June, 
1911. 

Hughes,  Charles  Evans,  "Conditions  of  Progress  in 
Democratic  Government,"  pp.  32-58. 

Johnson,  Hiram  W.,  "Inaugural  Address,"  Janu- 
ary, 1911. 

Reinsch,  p.  S.,  "Readings  on  American  State  Gov- 
ernment," pp.  1-10. 


m 


tsars 

CHAPTER  XII 


THE   PLACE   OF   EXPERTS   IN   STATE   AND   LOCAL 
ADMINISTRATION 

Not  only  is  our  state  and  local  administration 
defective  in  its  organization  and  in  the  charac- 
ter of  its  rank  and  file  but,  in  comparison  with 
other  systems,  it  suffers  from  the  absence  of 
expert  service.  In  this  country,  the  actual  car- 
rying out  of  the  details  of  government  is  left, 
as  we  have  seen,  to  officers  selected  for  almost 
every  other  reason  than  administrative  ability, 
and  whose  tenure  of  their  office  is  dependent  on 
the  turn  of  the  political  wheel.  In  England  and 
on  the  Continent  of  Europe,  similar  work  is 
performed  by  men  specially  trained  for  the 
tasks,  who  are  sure  of  their  positions  so  long  as 
they  keep  up  to  the  established  standard  of  ef- 
ficiency. The  governments  of  these  countries 
differ  from  our  own  and  from  one  another  in 
numerous  other  particulars.  They  are  alike 
distinguished  from  ours  only  in  this.  The  effi- 
ciency and  economy  of  governmental  adminis- 
tration in  England,  France  and  Prussia  has 
been  so  frequently  commented  upon  by  Amer- 

194 


THE  PLACE  OF  EXPERTS         195 

ican  observers  as  to  have  become  commonplace. 
If  we  are  to  find  the  reason  why  municipal  gov- 
ernment in  a  Prussian  city  is  more  efficient  than 
in  a  New  York  city,  or  why  the  state  adminis- 
tration of  Saxony  gives  better  results  per  unit 
of  cost  than  that  of  California,  we  must  not  for- 
get the  presence  there  and  absence  here  of  the 
expert. 

We  do  not  mean  that  all  government  offices 
demand  the  service  of  experts.  Those  who  per- 
form purely  mechanical  or  clerical  duties,  no 
matter  how  skillful  talent  or  experience  may 
have  made  them,  are  not  experts.  This  partic- 
ular discussion  has  nothing  to  do  with  such  du- 
ties or  with  the  means  of  selecting  persons  to 
perform  them.  We  are  interested,  for  the  pres- 
ent, only  in  those  positions  which  call  for  the  ex- 
ercise of  some  considerable  discretion — places 
of  responsibility  in  the  administrative  service. 
We  are,  in  this  chapter,  concerned  with  the 
''commissioned  officers"  of  administration. 
The  navy  yard  mechanic,  the  mail  distributor, 
the  department  copyist,  are  as  proficient  in 
this  country  as  in  Europe.  Of  experts  in  re- 
sponsible positions,  however,  we  have  but  an 
accidental  few.  We  govern  largely  without  the 
aid  of  men  who  know;  and  it  is  small  wonder 
that  cost  and  efficiency  lose  all  proper  relation 
under  such  a  system.    It  is  far  more  important 


196  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

that  the  men  in  the  responsible  places  should 
be  well  selected  than  that  their  more  or  less 
mechanical  subordinates  should  be  carefully 
chosen. 

The  reason  for  our  lack  of  experts  in  public 
service  is  to  be  found  in  our  characteristic 
American  confusion  of  the  functions  of  admin- 
istration and  representation.  Deeply  imbued 
with  the  democratic  ideal,  we  have  falsely 
thought  that  any  man  of  reasonable  intelligence 
was  qualified  to  fill  any  position  in  the  govern- 
ment, whether  it  be  that  of  a  legislator  or  an 
administrator.  We  have  a  boundless  faith  in 
the  ubiquitous  genius  of  our  fellow  countrymen. 
Now  comes  the  dull  awakening  to  the  results  of 
overconfidence.  We  have  conceived  of  every 
position  as  representative  and,  in  consequence, 
have  accepted  the  ''average  American"  as  the 
proper  incumbent  of  every  position.  Nat- 
urally, too,  we  have  applied  the  principle  of 
popular  election  to  as  many  administrative  of- 
fices as  possible.  As  for  the  rest  of  the  places, 
our  ideal  of  the  ''average  American"  has  led 
us  to  be  indifferent  and  careless  as  to  the 
method  of,  or  reason  for,  his  appointment. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  a  very  clear  dis- 
tinction between  the  functions  of  representa- 
tion and  administration,  and  between  the  quali- 
fications needed  by  those  who  are  performing 


THE  PLACE  OF  EXPERTS         197 

them.  It  is  the  purpose  of  representation  to 
reflect  as  closely  as  may  be  the  will  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  representative  requires  no  special 
training'.  The  possession  of  learning  or  capac- 
ity may  make  him  more  effective,  but  it  fre- 
quently withdraws  him  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  actually  hinders 
his  performance  of  the  representative  function. 
In  representative  bodies  it  is  desirable  that  all 
classes  in  the  community  should  be  represented, 
and  this  means,  in  general,  the  selection  of  good 
average  specimens  of  each  class,  who,  in  the 
long  run,  will  be  the  best  possible  reflectors  of 
the  ideals  and  interests  of  their  constituents. 
Of  course,  representatives  should  be  elected, 
and  should  be  subject  to  every  possible  check  to 
make  them  responsive  to  the  wishes  of  those 
whom  they  represent.  If  elected  for  long 
terms,  they  should  be  liable  to  recall,  and  their 
conduct  should  be  subject  to  review  by  the  ini- 
tiative and  referendum.  They  should  act 
wholly  in  the  public  eye,  and  should  be  con- 
stantly amenable  to  the  high  court  of  public 
opinion.  To  men  thus  chosen  and  thus  checked, 
should  be  entrusted  the  determination  of  all 
matters  of  general  policy.  They  would  include, 
in  our  country,  besides  members  of  distinctly 
legislative  bodies,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  his  Cabinet,  the  Governor  and  the 


198  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

heads  of  the  chief  departments  of  state  admin- 
istration and  the  mayors  and  councilmen  of 
cities. 

The  administrator,  on  the  other  hand,  has  no 
concern  with  "i^olicy,"  except  to  offer  such  sug- 
gestions and  advice  as  his  experience  warrants, 
and  to  abide  by  it  loyally  as  determined  by  his 
representative  superiors.  His  duty  is  simply 
to  carry  out  the  policy,  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  the  public  should  not  have  its  policies  ad- 
ministered by  men  as  competent  as  those  who  do 
similar  work  for  private  corporations.  The 
administrator's  relation  to  the  people  is  the 
same  that  is  borne  by  the  general  manager  and 
other  principal  executive  officers  of  a  corpora- 
tion to  its  stockholders. 

The  administrator  must  possess  special  train- 
ing. It  is  of  no  consequence  as  to  what  class 
of  society  he  comes  from.  He  should  be  ap- 
pointed, not  elected,  and  should  be  removed  as 
far  as  possible  from  the  immediate  effects  of 
public  opinion.  His  tenure  of  office  should  be 
made  secure  so  that  he  may  be  willing  to  make 
the  necessary  sacrifices  to  prepare  for  the  po- 
sition. In  every  respect,  his  qualifications 
should  be  the  exact  opposite  of  those  of  a  rep- 
resentative. In  private  business  the  stress  of 
competition  ordains  that  the  responsible  posi- 
tions shall  be  filled  by  experts.    In  public  busi- 


THE  PLACE  OF  EXPERTS         199 

ness,  there  is  no  such  ''iron  law,"  and  men  are 
too  frequently  appointed  because  they  are  good 
mixers,  clever  organizers,  specious  talkers,  or 
because  they  have  ''a  pull"  with  some  man  of 
power.  Public  business  can  never  be  carried 
on  with  the  efficiency  of  private  business  until 
for  the  absent  law  of  competition  we  substitute 
a  well  considered  popular  volition  to  be  served 
by  experts.  In  European  countries  this  act  of 
will  has  been  made  by  the  people,  or  for  them 
by  enlightened  authorities.  In  this  country  it 
is  yet  to  be  made. 

It  is  one  of  the  regrettable  incidents  of  the 
present  day  progressive  movements  that  few 
of  the  leaders  who  are  fighting  earnestly  for 
more  honest  and  more  representative  govern- 
ment, and  for  the  adoption  of  measures  reme- 
dial of  many  of  our  economic  maladjustments, 
are  awake  to  this  fundamental  distinction  be- 
tween the  functions  of  representation  and  ad- 
ministration. There  are  few  of  them  whose 
ideas  of  civil  service  reform  extend  beyond  the 
routine  position.  Even  in  that  late  phase  of 
municipal  reform,  the  so-called  commission  gov- 
ernment of  many  of  our  cities,  this  confusion 
has  been,  if  anything,  intensified.  The  underly- 
ing idea  of  commission  government  is  that  all 
powers  of  government,  legislative  and  executive 
alike,  should  be  centered  in  the  hands  of  a  small 


200     GOVEENMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

council,  or  commission.  In  this  respect,  it  does 
not  dilfer  strikingly,  except  in  the  size  of  the 
council,  from  the  English  system  of  municipal 
government,  or  from  that  which  prevailed  in  our 
earlier  American  cities.  If  we  consider  the  in- 
dividual commissioners  as  mere  committees  of 
one  upon  the  various  departments  into  which 
the  city  government  is  divided,  the  analogy  to 
the  British  borough  council  with  its  committees 
is  almost  exact.  This  system  has  resulted  in 
establishing  our  city  government  upon  an  hon- 
est basis.  The  organization  is  so  simple,  the 
number  of  officers  to  be  elected  so  few,  the  fix- 
ing of  responsibility  so  easy,  that  our  commis- 
sion governments  have  become  thoroughly  rep- 
resentative, giving  the  people  exactly  what  they 
ask,  without  opportunity  for  graft  or  corrup- 
tion. It  has  gone  only  a  short  way,  however, 
toward  making  the  government  of  our  cities 
more  efficient.  It  offers  no  greater  opportunity 
for  the  expert  than  the  older  and  more  compll 
cated  forms  which  it  supplants.  Unlike  a  mem- 
ber of  the  English  borough  council,  our  commis- 
sion government  councilors  are,  in  almost 
every  case,  salaried  officers  who  are  expected 
to  give  all,  or  a  very  large  proportion  of  their 
time  to  the  work  of  the  city  government,  and 
themselves  to  do  the  actual  work  of  adminis- 
tration.    They   are   not   only   representatives, 


THE  PLACE  OF  EXPERTS         201 

but  administrators.  In  general,  it  may  be  said, 
that  tliey  fulfill  the  functions  of  representation 
admirably,  but  those  of  administration  only  tol- 
erably. 

Take  for  example  the  city  of  Berkeley,  Cali- 
fornia. The  mayor  of  the  city  is  paid  a  salary 
of  $2400  a  year;  the  councilmen  salaries  of 
$1800.  They  are  not  required  to  give  their 
full  time  to  the  work,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
they  ordinarily  put  in  at  the  city's  business  the 
equivalent  of  a  full  day's  effort.  The  salary  is 
not  large  enough  to  attract  the  larger  business 
men,  or  the  men  most  experienced  in  affairs. 
This  is  typical  of  other  American  cities  under 
the  commission  form  of  government.  The  first 
mayor,  an  attorney  and  an  admirable  type 
of  public  servant,  was  replaced,  after  one  term, 
because  of  his  lack  of  the  graces  of  popularity, 
by  a  Socialist.  The  latter  was  undoubtedly  a 
representative  of  a  high  order,  the  spokesman 
of  a  large  class  in  the  community.  As  an  ad- 
ministrator, however,  he  had  no  special  fitness, 
either  by  training,  experience,  or  natural  apti- 
tude. His  qualities  were  those  of  a  propa- 
gandist. The  third  mayor,  young,  a  lumber 
merchant,  promised  to  unite,  as  well  as  could  be, 
the  characteristics  of  representative  and  ad- 
ministrator. The  commissioner  of  finance  and 
revenue,  another  Socialist,  had  conducted  sue- 


202     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

cessfully  for  some  years  a  small  bicycle  busi- 
ness in  our  city.  He  is  a  man  of  excellent  char- 
acter, thoroughly  representative  of  the  section 
of  the  city  from  which  he  comes,  but  his  business 
had  not  adequately  prepared  him  to  handle  the 
affairs  of  a  ninety  million  dollar  corporation. 
The  members  of  the  city  council  have  always 
been  respectable  gentlemen,  of  good  average 
ability,  admirably  fitted  to  serve  on  a  represent- 
ative council  in  any  city.  No  exception  can  be 
taken  to  their  characters.  They  have  handled 
their  departments  honestly  and,  within  their 
limits,  capably.  They  are  not,  however,  and 
never  will  be,  experts.  They  are  amateurs  in 
the  art  of  administration ;  and  whether  it  be  in 
athletics,  or  billiards,  or  the  business  of  govern- 
ment, amateurs  cannot  successfully  compete 
with  professionals. 

This  limitation  upon  the  success  of  commis- 
sion government  is  now  very  generally  recog- 
nized by  the  ablest  students  of  municipal  ad- 
ministration. The  cry  now  goes  up,  *'We  have 
honesty,  give  us  efficiency;"  and,  without  the 
assistance  of  men  who  know,  efficiency  is  impos- 
sible. The  demand  for  expert  service  in  the 
municipal  field  is  finding  expression  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  in  the  creation  of  voluntary  and  offi- 
cial ''bureaus  of  efficiency."  This  is  an  effort 
to  obviate  the  effects  of  the  amateurishness 


THE  PLACE  OP  EXPERTS        203 

of  tlie  regular  city  administrators,  by  sub- 
jecting tliem  to  expert  criticism,  and  by  sup- 
plying tlirough  detailed  investigations  of  par- 
ticular departments,  efficiency  data  plain  enough 
to  be  used  even  by  amateurs.  Of  course,  it  is 
obvious  that  such  a  method  of  introducing  the 
expert  element  into  the  city  government  can  not 
be  permanently  successful.  It  has  the  same 
limitation  as  the  process  of  keeping  the  indi- 
vidual organism  at  high  pressure  by  the  use  of 
cocktails  or  hypodermics.  It  can  not  take  the 
place  of  a  rationally  developed  system  of  ad- 
ministration in  which  expert  service  is  em- 
ployed. 

Another  expression,  and  for  small  cities,  at 
least,  a  more  satisfactory  one,  of  the  demand 
for  expert  service,  is  the  City  Manager.  This 
is  simply  the  plan  by  which  the  city  council 
should  employ,  at  a  comparatively  high  salary, 
an  acknowledged  expert  to  play  the  same  part 
in  the  fortunes  of  the  city  administration  that 
a  general  manager  does  in  those  of  a  private 
corporation.  For  cities  not  too  large  to  make 
it  impossible  for  one  man  to  have  a  sure  grasp 
of  the  situation,  this  method  promises  excellent 
results,  provided  the  business  manager  is  ap- 
pointed for  merit  and  given  sufficient  per- 
manency of  tenure.  The  first  city  to  put  this 
idea  into  effect  was  Staunton,  Virginia,  in  1908, 


204  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

when  its  council  of  the  antiquated  bicameral 
type  gave  over  by  ordinance  all  matters  of  an 
administrative  nature  to  a  ''general  manager." 
The  new  plan  was  first  completely  formulated 
as  a  charter  in  Lockport,  New  York,  in  1911, 
apparently  independently  of  the  earlier  mani- 
festation. This  charter,  which  remains  the 
most  complete  draft  of  the  city  manager  idea 
was,  however,  smothered  by  the  State  legisla- 
ture. It  remained  for  Sumter,  South  Carolina, 
to  put  the  first  charter  into  actual  operation  in 
1912.  It  was  soon  followed  by  other  small 
cities.  It  was  not,  however,  until  Dayton,  a 
city  of  over  116,000,  took  advantage  of  the  home 
rule  provision  in  the  new  Ohio  constitution  and 
the  wave  of  civic  patriotism  following  the  flood 
of  March,  1913,  to  carry  a  city  manager  char- 
ter, that  the  idea  was  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a 
''permanent  movement."  Dayton  has  had  the 
new  form  in  operation  since  January,  1914,  and 
from  official  reports  seems  to  be  prospering 
mightily  under  it.  Other  cities  are  now  rapidly 
adopting  this  device  for  putting  their  govern- 
ments into  the  hands  of  an  a,dministrative  ex- 
pert. A  City  Manager,  properly  selected,  and 
independent  in  his  position,  with  power  to  "hire 
and  fire"  subordinates,  subject,  of  course,  to 
proper  civil  service  restrictions,  seems  the  ideal 
mode  of  administration  for  a  small  city.    It 


THE  PLACE  OF  EXPERTS         205 

has  taken  the  first  hesitating  steps  toward  adop- 
tion, and  we  may  confidently  look  forward  to  its 
rapid  progress  in  the  next  few  years. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  successful 
administration  of  government  on  the  Continent 
of  Europe  as  a  result  of  the  use  of  experts  in 
their  proper  places.  A  word  or  two  as  to  the 
method  of  selection  of  these  experts  may  be 
worth  while.  In  England,  the  higher  civil  serv- 
ice, or,  to  use  the  English  nomenclature,  the 
first-class  clerkships  of  the  English  government 
are  filled  on  the  basis  of  competitive  examina- 
tions of  the  same  standard  as  the  honor  exam- 
inations in  classics  at  Oxford,  and  in  mathemat- 
ics and  modern  languages  at  Cambridge.  No 
effort  is  made  in  these  examinations  to  test  the 
fitness  of  the  candidate  for  any  particular  posi- 
tion. They  are  simply  a  test  of  his  general 
training,  and  they  insure  that  the  men  who  are 
admitted  to  the  first-class  clerkships  are  the 
best  of  the  graduates  of  the  two  great  English 
Universities.  Of  course,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
successful  completion  of  the  university  course 
which  insures  the  possession  of  administrative 
qualities  of  a  high  order,  but  there  is  more  prob- 
ability of  getting  men  of  capacity  from  among 
such  university  graduates  than  among  any 
other  class  in  the  community.  They  are  the 
class  who  supply  the  leaders  of  the  bar,  the  pul- 


206  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

pit  and  the  business  world.  The  selection  of 
experts  by  the  English  municipality  is  ham- 
pered by  no  civil  service  restrictions.  Any  bor- 
ough council  is  at  liberty  to  employ  any  person 
for  any  position,  with  or  without  qualifications, 
and  to  continue  his  employment  for  as  long  or 
short  a  period  as  they  desire.  An  enlightened 
public  sentiment,  however,  absolutely  requires 
that  appointments  shall  be  made  on  the  basis 
of  efficiency,  and  forbids  removals  for  anything 
but  wrongdoing  or  incapacity.  The  larger 
cities  look  among  the  officers  of  the  smaller 
cities  for  men  who  have  made  good,  and  then 
translate  them  to  a  larger  field  of  usefulness. 
The  result  is  that  municipal  service  of  various 
sorts  becomes  a  regular  profession  into  which 
young  men  enter,  usually  in  subordinate  posi- 
tions in  small  cities  with  a  fair  prospect  of 
working  up  to  the  very  highest  places.  One 
officer  in  the  English  borough  deserves  special 
mention.  This  is  the  to"\vn  clerk.  He  is  always 
a  solicitor,  in  the  largest  cities  always  a  man  of 
great  experience  in  the  office.  He  is  not  only 
an  expert  in  the  legal  intricacies  of  the  munici- 
pal coi-porations '  acts,  but  by  his  long  connec- 
tion with  city  government  is  qualified  to  be  a 
general  adviser  with  regard  to  all  sorts  of  mu- 
nicipal problems.  He  is,  in  short,  a  sort  of 
municipal  factotum,  corresponding,  in  a  way, 


THE  PLACE  OF  EXPEKTS         207 

to  the  proposed  business  manager  of  our  Ameri- 
can municipalities. 

In  France,  entrance  to  the  higher  civil  service 
is  ordinarily  achieved  by  pursuing  a  certain 
prerequisite  course  of  study,  the  passing  of  an 
examination  set  by  the  department  in  which  the 
applicant  desires  to  take  service,  and  then  by 
probationary  service,  frequently  without  any 
compensation  whatever,  for  a  period  that  some- 
times extends  as  long  as  two  years.  This,  of 
course,  limits  the  higher  French  service  to  the 
children  of  families  of  some  substance,  a  thing 
which  we  could  not  for  a  moment  think  of  dupli- 
cating in  America.  French  municipalities  are 
left  as  free  as  are  the  English  municipalities  in 
the  choice  and  retention  of  their  officers,  but 
in  France  as  in  England  custom  dictates  that 
they  shall  be  chosen  for  their  real  merit.  There 
is  in  France,  also,  a  very  effective  supervision 
of  municipal  atfairs  by  the  expert  officers  of  the 
central  government. 

In  Prussia,  admission  to  the  higher  service 
is  even  more  difficult  than  in  France.  The  ap- 
plicant must  have  completed  a  university  course, 
passed  an  examination,  and  written  a  thesis. 
If  he  can  clear  these  hurdles,  he  is  then  given  a 
four  years'  probationary  term  of  service,  with- 
out pay,  at  the  end  of  which  he  must  pass  still 
another  examination.    This  makes  the  service, 


208     OOVERNIMENT  FOE  THE  PEOPLE 

even  more  tlian  in  France,  the  exclusive  prop- 
erty of  the  well-to-do.  It  is,  in  many  respects, 
a  very  admirable  service,  its  members  being 
almost  universally  competent,  and  its  only  de- 
fects being  a  tendency  to  red  tape  and  rigidity. 
The  Prussian  municipalities  have  a  form  of 
organization  full  of  helpful  suggestion  for  us. 
A  large,  unpaid  city  council  is  the  basis  of  it, 
the  principal  business  of  this  council  being  to 
select  the  Magistral.  This  body  consists  in 
part  of  paid  and  in  part  of  unpaid  members.  It 
is  presided  over  by  the  burgomaster,  who,  in 
the  smaller  places,  is  sometimes  the  only  paid 
member.  He  is  a  general  municipal  expert  to 
an  even  greater  extent  than  the  British  town 
clerk,  and  corresponds  even  more  closely  to  the 
business  manager.  He  and  the  other  paid  mem- 
bers of  the  Magistrat  are  always  selected  on 
a  strict  business  basis  by  the  council.  If  a 
burgomaster  is  wanted,  the  city  council  will  in- 
sert an  advertisement  in  the  papers  throughout 
the  country  reading  something  like  this: 
** Wanted,  a  burgomaster;  applicants  will  apply 

at  the  town  hall    of . ' '     Then,  from  among 

the  candidates  so  applying,  one  is  selected  on 
the  basis  of  the  good  work  which  he  has  previ- 
ously done.  The  tenure  of  office  of  the  paid 
members  of  the  Magistrat  is  twelve  years,  with 
the  assurance  of  a  liberal  retiring  allowance  at 


THE  PLACE  OF  EXPERTS         209 

the  end  of  that  period  if  they  are  not  reelected. 
The  admirable  administration  of  the  German 
cities  no  longer  seems  a  thing  to'  wonder  at 
when  we  consider  the  character  of  the  men  who 
are  carrying  out  this  work. 

In  England  and  Prussia,  the  relation  between 
the  expert  administrator  and  lay  officials  has 
been  most  carefully  worked  out.  The  charac- 
teristic feature  of  English  administration  is  a 
responsible  lay  officer  and  a  subordinate  expert 
to  whom  the  former  looks  constantly  for  assist- 
ance. This  is  true  of  Cabinet  Minister  and 
Justice  of  the  Peace  alike.  The  various 
branches  of  city  administration,  for  example, 
are  assigned  to  committees  of  the  council  whose 
first  business  is  to  select  an  expert  to  manage 
the  department.  As  long  as  he  retains  their 
confidence  he  has  a  free  hand.  He  recommends 
policies  to  them  and  they  ordinarily  accept  his 
suggestions.  The  power  of  decision,  however, 
in  every  matter  rests  with  the  committee  and 
ultimately  with  the  council  as  a  whole.  In 
Prussian  cities  there  is  ample  provision  for  the 
consultation  of  the  lay  members  of  the  ''Depu- 
tations" which  oversee  each  branch  of  the  ad- 
ministration but,  except  in  financial  matters, 
where  the  council  prevails,  the  professional  of- 
ficial is  the  deciding  factor.  The  English  model 
is  probably  better  fitted  to  our  situation  than 


210     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

the  German.  Power,  at  any  rate,  should  never 
be  gi*anted  to  experts  apart  from  lay  super- 
vision and  control.  In  state  affairs  each  de- 
partment should  have  at  its  head  a  layman  re- 
sponsible to  the  Governor.  In  city  affairs, 
either  the  lay  board  of  commissioners  should 
collectively  choose  and  regulate  a  business  man- 
ager, or  individually  they  should  supervise  the 
activities  of  experts  in  their  several  depart- 
ments. 

Lay  government  is  awkward  and  inefficient. 
Expert  government  is  stiff  and  red  taped.  Ex- 
perts are  never  wholly  sane.  They  are  mono- 
maniacs, more  or  less  pronounced,  upon  their 
own  subjects,  and  an  administration  left  en- 
tirely to  them  soon  becomes  fonnal,  rigid  and 
devoted  to  the  fulfillment  of  purely  technical 
aims.  Further,  no  method  of  selecting  expert 
officials  is  possible,  except  by  lay  supervisors. 
Popular  election  can  not  be  counted  on  because 
the  qualities  of  the  expert  are  by  no  means  those 
which  most  make  for  popularity.  Further, 
popular  election  is  uncertain  and  well  trained 
experts  will  not  submit  themselves  to  its 
chances.  Permanency  of  tenure  is  a  pre- 
requisite of  expert  service.  On  the  other  hand, 
experts  must  be  responsible  to  some  one. 
Hence  the  appearance  in  every  good  system  of 
administration  of  the  selecting  authority  which 


THE  PLACE  OF  EXPEETS         211 

acts  as  a  ''shock-absorber"  between  expert  and 
official.  Such  a  system  insures  responsibility, 
sanity  and  efficiency,  things  to  be  desired  above 
fine  gold  in  the  business  of  government. 

How  can  we  secure  the  advantages  of  expert 
service  in  the  United  States?  The  first  step 
is  the  awakening  of  American  public  opinion 
to  a  recognition  of  the  distinction  between  the 
functions  of  administration  and  representation. 
We  must  come  to  understand  that  our  business 
is  worthy  of  being  conducted  by  the  best  trained 
and  most  competent  of  men.  We  must  leave 
behind  forever  the  fallacy  that  any  American 
can  do  anything.  If  we  could  so  affect  public 
opinion  as  to  create  an  immediate  and  insistent 
demand  that  only  men  of  sufficient  qualifications 
be  appointed  to  public  offices,  and  that,  once  in, 
they  should  remain  as  long  as  they  make  good, 
there  would  be  no  need  of  any  legal  enactments 
on  the  subject.  It  is  probable,  however,  that 
such  a  state  of  public  sentiment  can  not  be 
brought  to  pass  within  a  reasonable  time.  We 
need  an  example  of  the  results  that  may  be 
accomplished  by  experts  to  put  the  finishing 
touches  on  this  course  of  education.  In  default 
of  a  perfect  state  of  public  sentiment,  we  must 
provide  by  law  for  the  filling  of  the  higher  ad- 
ministrative places  by  some  system  of  merit  ap- 
pointment.   The  first  step  in  this  direction  is  to 


212  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

divide  the  civil  service  into  two  great  classes — • 
the  lower  and  the  higher.  In  the  first,  put 
purely  clerical  or  routine  positions ;  in  the  sec- 
ond, those  involving  the  use  of  discretion  on  a 
large  scale.  Admission  to  the  former  should 
be,  as  now,  by  competitive  examinations  on  the 
present  basis.  Admission  to  the  lower  grades 
of  the  second  or  higher  class  should  be  based 
upon  the  completion  of  a  satisfactory  course  of 
study,  or  by  the  passing  of  an  equivalent  ex- 
amination. No  true  American  will  advocate 
for  a  moment  closing  the  door  to  the  higher 
positions  on  those  who  have  missed  the  oppor- 
tunity of  a  formal  education.  This  being  true, 
there  must  be  a  way  into  this  service  by  exam- 
ination. More  responsible  positions  must  nat- 
urally be  filled  by  promotion  from  below.  A 
good  deal  of  progress  has  been  made  in  the 
United  States  civil  service  toward  the  accom- 
plishment of  these  results.  Higher  and  higher 
positions  are  constantly  being  included  in  the 
classified  service.  In  our  States  and  cities,  the 
situation  is  veiy  different.  There  the  require- 
ment of  a  course  of  study  or  the  passing  of  an 
examination  for  the  higher  positions  would  be 
almost  revolutionary. 

The  eligible  list  for  positions  in  the  United 
States  service  would  naturally  be  drawn  up,  as 
now,  by  the  United  States  Civil  Service  Com- 


THE  PLACE  OF  EXPERTS         213 

mission.  The  eligible  list  for  state  and  mu- 
nicipal and  other  local  positions  should  be  all 
l^repared  by  a  state  civil  service  commission. 
There  are  not  enough  positions  requiring  ex- 
perts, and  not  enough  experts  to  become  candi- 
dates for  them  in  the  average  city  to  bring 
about  anything  like  effective  competition.  The 
state  eligible  list,  from  which  the  State  or  any 
town  or  county  might  draw,  would  obviate  this 
difficulty,  and  at  the  same  time  give  a  better 
assurance  of  fair  and  thorough  examination. 
As  to  providing  the  experts  to  fill  these  posi- 
tions, our  American  universities  are,  without 
any  very  striking  increase  of  their  present 
teaching  force,  or  any  great  addition  to  their 
budgets,  in  position  to  train  every  variety  of 
governmental  expert.  The  writer  recently  pre- 
pared a  set  of  proposed  courses  in  preparation 
for  certain  municipal  positions,  based  upon 
courses  now  offered  in  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia. He  found  that  it  would  be  necessary  to 
offer  but  three  new  courses  in  order  to  train 
practically  any  kind  of  municipal  expert  that 
might  be  required.  Our  universities  can  turn 
out  the  men  as  soon  as  the  field  is  open  to  them ; 
as  soon  as  some  assurance  can  be  had  that  a 
man  who  has  taken  a  proper  course  of  study 
can  get  a  place  and  keep  it. 
What  is  the  place  of  an  expert  in  state  and 


214     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

municipal  affairs?  There  is  no  place  for  any 
one  else  in  any  responsible  administrative  po- 
sition. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

American  Political  Science  Review,  February,  1913. 
FouLKE,  WnxiAM   Dudley,  "Expert  City  Manage- 
ment," National  Municipal  Review,  October,  1912, 
pp.  549-561. 
GooDNOW,  F.  J.,  "Comparative  Administrative  Law," 
vol.    II,    27-61.     "Municipal    Government,"    pp. 
209-233.     "Municipal  Problems,"  pp.  247-281. 
Lowell,  A.  L.,  "Permanent  Officials  in  Municipal 
Government,"  in  Proceedings  National  Municipal 
League,  1908,  pp.  215-222.     "Government  of  Eng- 
land," vol.  I,  pp.  145-194.     "Expert  Administra- 
tors in  Popular  Government,"  American  Political 
Science  Review,  February,  1913. 
Lowell,  A.  L.,  and  Stephens,  H.  Morse,  "Colonial 

Civil  Service." 
Moses,  Robert,  "The  Civil  Service  of  Great  Britain." 
MuNRO,    W.    B.,    "The    Government    of    European 

Cities,"  pp.  62-91,  164-208,  281-308. 
Shaw,  Albert,  "Municipal  Government  in  Conti- 
nental Europe,"  pp.  289-322.  "Municipal  Gov- 
ernment in  Great  Britain,"  pp.  63-68. 
"Woodruff,  Clinton  Rogers,  "Civil  Service  Reform 
at  Los  Angeles,"  in  National  Municipal  Review, 
October,  1912,  pp.  639-646.  "The  Selection  and 
Retention  of  Experts  in  Municipal  Office,"  ihid, 
pp.  646-649. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE   ADMINISTEATION    OP    EDUCATION 

The  general  principle  which  should  control  the 
organization  of  the  administrative  side  of  gov- 
ernment we  have  seen  to  be  the  concentration 
of  power  and  responsibility.  We,  therefore, 
must  show  strong  grounds  for  recommending 
any  deviation  from  this  principle.  Upon  edu- 
cation, our  state  and  local  governments  employ 
upwards  of  twenty  per  cent,  of  their  total  reve- 
nues. The  number  of  teachers  and  adminis- 
trative officers  engaged  in  educational  work  far 
surpasses  the  numbers  engaged  in  any  other 
branch  of  government.  The  success  of  the  edu- 
cational system  is  more  important  to  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  community  than  is  the  success 
of  any  other  administrative  department  except 
that  of  justice.  Granted,  then,  the  enormous 
importance  of  educational  administration  and 
the  marvelous  opportunities  for  the  political 
manipulator  which  it  offers;  granted,  also,  the 
present  state  of  public  sentiment  with  regard 
to  the  employment  of  experts  in  public  service ; 
there  is  grave  reason  for  believing  that,  while 

215 


216  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

logically  educational  administration  does  not 
differ  from  other  kinds  of  administration,  some 
unusual  precaution  should  be  taken  to  keep  it 
out  of  the  field  of  politics.  Our  well-nigh  uni- 
versal practice  in  the  United  States  is  to  pro- 
vide a  separate  and  peculiar  administrative 
machinery  for  education,  and,  on  the  whole,  we 
have  been  justified  by  the  facts  of  the  situa- 
tion. 

There  are  six  possible  methods  of  organizing 
the  state  administration  of  education.  The 
first  of  these  is  the  bureau  system,  which  means 
simply  that  education  should  be  administered 
by  a  superintendent  or  secretary  appointed  by 
the  Governor  in  just  the  same  way  that  other 
departments  are  administered  by  similarly  ap- 
pointed heads.  The  bureau  system  of  manag- 
ing educational  affairs  exists  in  England, 
France  and  Germany.  In  so  far  as  the  United 
States  government  has  educational  functions  at 
all,  the  bureau  system  is  applied  to  them.  The 
city  of  Sacramento,  California,  has  pursued  the 
unique  policy  of  intrusting  the  administration 
of  education  to  the  city  council  itself,  one  of  the 
city  councilors  being  the  Commissioner  of  Ed- 
ucation. With  this  one  exception,  American 
States  and  cities  have  uniformly  avoided  the 
bureau  system.  The  bureau  system  fits  in  log- 
ically with  the  general  scheme  of  administra- 


ADMINISTRATION  OF  EDUCATION     217 

tion,  but,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  dangers 
which  surround  it  in  a  country  like  ours  are  so 
great  as  to  render  its  adoption  an  invitation  to 
disaster. 

Another  possible  form  of  administration  is 
that  by  a  commission,  the  members  of  which  are 
paid  salaries  and  are  expected  to  perform  the 
actual  detailed  and  professional  work  of  ad- 
ministration. This  means  applying  to  educa- 
tion the  same  system  of  administration  which  is 
so  commonly  applied  to  the  regulation  of  public 
utilities  and  the  conduct  of  many  other  branches 
of  state  business.  It  is  open  to  every  possible 
objection  which  may  be  alleged  against  the  bu- 
reau system,  without  the  logical  merit  of  fitting 
into  a  consistent  scheme  of  administration. 
This  method  is  not  employed  by  any  State,  but 
in  several  cities,  notably  in  San  Francisco,  it 
has  been  tried  with  rather  unfortunate  results. 
In  that  city,  the  Superintendent  of  Schools,  who 
also  possesses  independent  administrative  au- 
thority, is  elected  by  the  people.  The  result  is 
a  confusion  of  responsibility  and  a  division  of 
authority  incompatible  with  genuine  success. 
As  to  the  working  of  the  commission  plan  with- 
out such  complications,  we  have  no  data. 

The  third  possible  arrangement  is  that  of  a 
board  made  up  in  a  majority,  at  least,  of  edu- 
cational experts,  who  may  be  appointed  either 


218  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

by  the  Governor  or  occupy  their  position  ex 
officio.  This  system  is  employed  with  consid- 
erable variations  as  to  detail  in  some  eight  of 
our  States,  including  Virginia,  West  Virginia, 
Indiana  and,  until  1913,  California.  On  its 
face,  a  board  of  education  thus  composed  should 
be  exceedingly  efficient,  especially  if  it  is  so  ar- 
ranged as  to  secure  representation  on  the  board 
of  all  sorts  of  educational  interests.  Great 
criticism  has  been  directed  against  the  system 
formerly  in  vogue  in  California  because  the  ma- 
jority of  the  board  members  were  principals  of 
nonnal  schools,  while  secondary  and  elementary 
education  were  unrepresented.  The  members 
of  such  boards  are  thoroughly  familiar  with 
educational  work  and  very  competent  to  render 
sound  judgment.  The  great  difficulty  of  the 
system  is  that  these  expert  members  of  the 
board  are  already  fully  occupied  in  the  perform- 
ance of  important  duties,  so  that  they  have 
very  little  time  to  give  to  the  supervision  of 
education.  They  can,  indeed,  give  no  more  time 
to  it  than  a  board  of  laymen,  and  in  the  time 
at  their  disposal  there  is  very  little  opportunity 
for  them  to  employ  to  advantage  their  expert 
knowledge.  Furthennore,  in  all  the  States  in 
which  these  expert  boards  exist,  the  superin- 
tendent of  public  instruction,  who  is  the  execu- 
tive officer  of  the  board  and  the  real  head  of  the 


ADMINISTRATION  OF  EDUCATION     219 

educational  administration  of  the  State,  is 
elected  by  the  people.  "VVe  have  already  seen 
that  it  is  impossible  to  secure  a  permanently 
wise  selection  of  experts  by  pojoular  election. 
Popularly  elected  superintendents  of  public  in- 
struction are  sometimes  excellent  men,  but  they 
are  always  politicians,  and  almost  never  educa- 
tional experts.  The  result  is  that  in  this  sys- 
tem we  have  an  absolute  reversal  of  what  we 
have  already  seen  to  be  the  normal  constitution 
of  any  administrative  system.  Instead  of  lay- 
men performing  representative  functions,  in- 
cluding the  appointment  and  control  of  experts, 
we  have  a  body  of  experts  set  to  criticise  and 
control  a  lay  administrator.  In  other  words, 
we  have  the  expert  in  the  wrong  place.  As  this 
system  has  worked  out  there  has  been  little  to 
commend  it.  It  is  not  now  supported  by  any 
considerable  authority  on  the  subject  of  educa- 
tional administration. 

The  fourth  possible  system  is  that  of  an  ex- 
officio  board  of  state  officials,  to  which  may  be 
added  certain  appointive  members.  Colorado 
has  this  system  in  its  purity,  with  the  Superin- 
tendent, Secretary  of  State  and  Attorney  Gen- 
eral as  its  Board  of  Education.  Florida  has 
the  same  system,  with  the  addition  of  the  Gov- 
ernor and  the  State  Treasurer.  If,  of  course, 
the  number  of  appointive  members  is  in  a  ma- 


220  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

jority,  it  will  be  proper  to  place  sucli  a  board 
under  tlie  sixth  order  of  classification.  There 
is  little  that  can  be  said  in  defense  of  ex-ofiicio 
boards  of  state  officials.  Such  boards,  whether 
they  are  set  to  supervise  education  or  any  other 
branch  of  administration,  are  singularly  ineffi- 
cient. They  seldom  do  anything,  each  member 
being  usually  more  interested  in  avoiding  re- 
sponsibility than  in  promoting  the  work  of  the 
board.  The  work  of  a  board  of  education  so 
organized  is  not  the  business  of  any  particular 
member  on  it  except  the  superintendent,  whom 
the  board  is  expected  to  supervise.  It  is  a  safe 
conclusion,  then,  that  such  boards  are  simply 
incumbrances  and  have  no  excuse  for  existence. 
They  are  neither  logical  nor  practical. 

The  fifth  possible  plan  is  that  of  Michigan, 
by  which  a  board  of  education,  consisting  of 
three  members,  is  elected  by  the  people.  No 
one  would,  I  think,  seriously  recommend  the 
adoption  of  this  plan  anywhere  else.  We  have 
seen  enough  of  the  evils  of  the  long  ballot  to 
wish  to  avoid  any  increase  of  the  number  of 
elective  officers. 

The  sixth  plan  is  that  of  a  board  of  laymen 
appointed  by  the  Governor.  If  we  include 
those  States  in  which  the  board  is  partly  ex- 
officio  but  in  a  majority  appointive,  this  plan  is 
the  one  in  force  in  a  majority  of  States.    It, 


ADMINISTKATION  OF  EDUCATION     221 

too,  is  subject  to  abuse  if  the  tenns  of  the  board 
are  no  longer  than  that  of  the  authority  appoint- 
ing them,  so  that  the  Governor  can  control  the 
complexion  of  the  board.     It  is  possible  for  it 
to  become  a  mere  instrument  in  his  hands  for 
politically  directing  the  administration  of  edu- 
cation.    If,  however,  the  members  of  the  board 
are  given  a  long  term  and  are  retired  in  rota- 
tion, so  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  Gov- 
ernor to  get  control  of  the  board,  we  have  prac- 
tically absolute  jorotection  against  the  introduc- 
tion of  politics  in  a  bad  sense  into  the  schools, 
and  have  a  basis  for  a  system  of  educational 
administration  which  is  worthy  of  some  future 
notice.     In  most  States  having  this  form   of 
board,  a  superintendent  of  public  instruction  is 
either  elected  by  the  people  or  appointed  by 
the  Governor.     In  Massachusetts,  Connecticut, 
Ehode    Island    and   New   York,   the    Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction  is  appointed  by 
the  Board.     Where  the  Superintendent  of  Pub- 
lic   Instniction    is    an    independently    elected 
state   officer,   and,   as   is    always    the   case,   a 
member  of  the  board,  the  control  which  the 
board  has  over  him  is  not  very  effective  ex- 
cept, unfortunately,  in  those  matters  in  which 
the  partisan  exigencies  of  the  majority  of  the 
board  may  lead  them  to  act  as  a  unit.     In  other 
words,  upon  all  educational  matters  they  are 


222  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

likely  to  show  little  interest  and  exercise  little 
power.  Furthermore,  under  such  a  system 
there  is  expert  knowledge  neither  in  the  hoard 
nor  in  the  superintendent.  Where,  however, 
the  superintendent  is  appointed  by  the  board, 
he  ordinarily  is  selected  because  of  his  fine 
record  as  an  educational  expert.  This  system 
establishes  what  we  have  seen  to  be  the  ideal  re- 
lation between  lay  representatives  and  expert 
administrative  officers ;  in  other  words,  we  have 
a  standard  organization  for  an  administrative 
department  different  from  other  departments  of 
administration  only  in  the  fact  that  the  lay  au- 
thority is,  in  this  case,  a  separate,  independent 
board,  instead  of  being  a  single  officer  directly 
responsible  to  the  chief  executive  or  the  people. 
We  have,  therefore,  protected  the  educational 
system  against  any  incursion  of  political  hordes 
and,  at  the  same  time,  provided  it  with  an  in- 
ternal administration  of  a  standard  sort. 

It  would  be  easy  to  demonstrate,  not  only  by 
the  line  of  a  priori  reasoning  in  which  we  have 
just  indulged,  but  by  the  profitable  experience 
of  those  communities  where  the  system  has  been 
tried,  the  eminent  desirability  of  the  system  of 
lay  boards  and  expert  superintendence.  The 
two  best  systems  of  state  educational  adminis- 
tration that  we  have  are  those  of  Massachusetts 
and  New  York,  in  which  an  expert  is  appointed 


ADMINISTRATION  OF  EDUCATION     223 

by  a  lay  board.  The  typical  form  of  organiza- 
tion of  the  local  administration  of  education  is 
that  of  a  lay  board  elected  by  the  people  and 
an  expert  superintendent  appointed  by  them. 
On  the  whole,  this  system  works  admirably,  the 
exceptions  usually  arising  from  the  fact  that 
either  the  board  or  the  superintendent  fails  to 
recognize  the  proper  sphere  of  their  activities. 
Sometimes  the  superintendent  endeavors  to  run 
the  politics  of  the  board;  sometimes  the  board 
endeavors  to  perform  the  technical  work  of  ad- 
ministering the  school  system.  Where  the 
board  leaves  the  superintendent  a  free  hand  in 
the  administration  of  the  technical  side  of  edu- 
cation, so  long  as  they  retain  confidence  in  him 
and  his  methods,  and  where  he  confines  himself 
strictly  within  his  bounds,  leaving  to  the  board 
the  determination  of  the  broader  matters  of 
policy,  the  system  works  to  perfection.  In- 
deed, this  may  be  taken  as  a  typical  example 
of  the  relation  that  ought  to  exist  between  the 
expert  and  his  lay  superiors. 

We  may  conclude,  then,  that  educational  ad- 
ministration should  be,  in  accordance  with  the 
almost  universal  local  practice,  and  with  the  ex- 
perience of  the  States  having  the  best  systems, 
entrusted,  as  far  as  the  State  is  concerned,  to 
a  board  appointed  by  the  Governor  for  a  long 
term,  its  members  retiring  in  rotation,  this 


224  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

board  to  have  the  power  of  appointing  the 
superintendent.  Locally,  it  should  be  entrusted 
to  either  elected  or  appointed  boards  of  laymen, 
who,  in  turn,  should  appoint  the  local  superin- 
tendents. 

It  is  objected  to  this  system  by  those  who 
distrust  the  ability  of  boards  of  laymen  to  han- 
dle technical  questions  of  education,  that  the 
board  ought  to  contain  persons  who  have  had 
experience  in  educational  work.  To  this  we 
would  reply  that  the  function  of  a  board  of  edu- 
cation is  not  to  handle  the  details  of  educa- 
tional administration,  but  simply  to  determine 
broad  matters  of  policy  and  select  a  superin- 
tendent. If  an  expert  board  should  select  an 
expert  superintendent,  as  it  might  be  reason- 
ably expected  to  do  if  it  had  the  power  of  ap- 
pointing him,  we  would  have  a  system  in  which 
the  lay  point  of  view  would  have  no  place. 
This  would  be  highly  undesirable.  A  touch  of 
lay  sanity  is  needed  in  every  branch  of  adminis- 
tration, perhaps  more  so  in  education  than  any- 
where else.  A  lay  board  with  an  expert  super- 
intendent gives  us  the  right  combination  of 
lay  and  expert  opinion,  of  an  expert  board  and 
the  publicly  elected. 

Still  another  type  of  mind  contends  that  in 
spite  of  all  that  is  said  about  the  danger  of 
politics  entering  into  school  administration,  the 


ADMINISTRATION  OF  EDUCATION     225 

only  logically  consistent  thing  to  do  is  to  adopt 
the  bureau  system.     To  these  people  who  are 
so  rash  as  to  wish  to  run  the  risk  of  what  might 
happen  to  our  system  of  education  under  direct 
political  control,  we  would  reply  that,  granted 
everything  else  which  they  have  alleged,  their 
system  would  provide  no  adequate  supervision 
of  the  activities  of  the  superintendent.     Few 
governors,  by  training  or  by  disposition,  are 
fitted  to  undertake  a  close  supervision  of  a 
superintendent  of  public  instruction.    Further- 
more, the  Governor  has  no  time  for  it.    Serv- 
ice for  several  months  in  the  office  of  the  most 
efficient  and  industrious  Governor  the  State  of 
California  ever  had,  has  convinced  the  writer 
that  there  is  no  chance  in  such  an  office  for  the 
supervision  of   the  highly  technical  work  of 
its   superintendent   of  public  instruction.    In 
France,  where  the  bureau  system  of  education 
prevails,  not  only  is  the  Minister  of  Public  In- 
struction responsible  to  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties, in  which  there  are  many  members  inter- 
ested in  education  and  ready  to  call  him  to  ac- 
count for  his  least  mistake,  but  provision  is 
made  for  a  great  council  of  education,  composed 
of  educational  experts  who  supply  advice  upon 
educational  questions  and  settle  appeals  from 
minor   educational    authorities.    In   England, 
the  President  of  the  Board  of  Education,  al- 


226  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

tliougli  tlie  Board  is  a  mere  phantom,  is  also 
responsible  to  the  House  of  Commons.  A 
board  of  education  seems  to  be  necessary  in  or- 
der to  secure  adequate  supervision  of  the  ac- 
tivities of  the  professional  expert  superintend- 
ent. 

Last  of  all,  there  is  a  class  of  people  who  be- 
lieve that  it  is  necessary  to  retain  the  superin- 
tendent of  public  instruction  as  a  publicly 
elected  officer  in  order  to  obtain  the  representa- 
tion of  popular  views  in  the  state  administra- 
tion of  education.  They  demand  that  the  peo- 
ple shall  not  be  deprived  of  their  ''tribune," 
the  state  superintendent.  There  is  a  not  incon- 
siderable class  of  politicians  who  delight  to  ap- 
peal to  this  point  of  view,  although  they  must  be 
aware  in  their  own  hearts  of  the  fact  that  an 
elected  state  superintendent  has  never  been 
and  never  will  be  a  tribune  of  the  people.  We 
have  already  seen,  in  our  discussion  of  the  long 
ballot,  how  little  attention  the  people  give — not 
through  any  fault  of  theirs — to  the  minor  state 
officers.  To  this  class  the  superintendent  of 
public  instruction  belongs.  He  has,  like  the 
other  minor  officers,  been  picked  out  by  the 
ring  politicians  who  have  habitually  made  up 
the  party  slate.  In  the  old  days  this  choice 
used  to  be  ratified  by  the  party  convention.  It 
is  now  generally  ratified  by  the  direct  primary. 


ADMINISTRATION  OF  EDUCATION     227 

The  people,  however,  in  voting  in  the  direct 
primary,  have  no  more  interest  in  or  informa- 
tion about  the  superintendent  or  other  minor 
candidates  than  they  formerly  had  in  voting  at 
the  election.  The  result  is  that  our  superin- 
tendents of  public  instruction  have,  in  general, 
been  representatives,  not  of  the  people,  but  of 
the  controlling  political  clique  in  the  State.  It 
is  true  that  such  political  cliques  usually  put 
up  men  for  this  position  who  have  some  kind 
of  qualification  for  it,  but  to  claim  that  the 
superintendent  of  public  instruction  should  be 
retained  as  an  elective  officer  because  he  is  a 
** tribune  of  the  people"  is  to  ignore  the  actual 
facts  of  practical  politics. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Balliot,  E.  p.,  "French  Educational  System,"  Edu- 
cation, 1906,  vol.  26,  p.  385. 

Butler,  N.  M.,  ''Problems  of  Educational  Adminis- 
tration," Educational  Review,  vol.  32,  p.  515. 

Chancellor,  W.  E.,  ''Our  City  Schools;  Their  Ad- 
ministration and  Supervision"  (1908),  pp.  1-77. 

CoMPAYRE,  G.,  "Recent  Educational  Progress  in 
France,"  Educational  Review,  vol.  27,  p.  19,  (1904) . 

Draper,  A.  S.,  "Educational  Organization  and  Ad- 
ministration," in  "Monographs  on  Education," 
edited  by  N.  M.  Butler,  vol.  I,  pp.  17-22  (1904). 


228  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

DuTTON  and  Snedden,  "Administration  of  Public 
Education  in  the  United  States/'  pp.  54-72. 

Elliott,  E.  C,  ''State  School  Systems,"  U.  S.  Bureau 
of  Education  Bulletin  No.  3,  pp.  1-156  (1906). 

Fairchild,  E.  T.,  "Province  of  State  Boards  and 
State  Superintendents  in  the  Administration  of 
Public  Education,"  National  Educational  Associa- 
tion Proceedings,  1909,  pp.  423-26. 

Fairlie,  J.  A.,  "State  Administration  in  New  York," 
Political  Science  Quarterly,  vol.  15,  p.  50  (1900). 

Illinois  Education  Commission:  "A  Tentative  Plan 
for  a  State  Board  of  Education,"  Bulletin  No.  1 
(1908). 

Illinois  School  Report,  1908-1910,  pp.  278-296. 

McMillan,  T.,  "School  Laws  in  New  York,"  CatJiolic 
World,  vol.  70,  p.  834  (1900). 

Massachusetts:  Annual  Report  of  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation for  1909-1910,  pp.  15-19,  89-91. 

MacLean,  G.  E.,  "Unification  of  a  State's  Educa- 
tional Forces,"  New  England  Magazine,  vol.  44,  p. 
355  (1911). 

New  York  State  Educational  Department  Annual 
Report  for  1904,  p.  16. 

New  York  (State)  Legislature:  Final  Report  of  the 
Special  Joint  Committee  on  Educational  Unifica- 
tion  (1904). 

Perkins,  H.  A.,  "Educational  System  of  France," 

Educational  Review,  vol.  41,  pp.  245-60  (1911). 
Prince,  J.  T.,  "School  Administration,"  pp.  21-31 

(1906). 
School   Review:   "Proposed   Unification   of   Eduea- 


ADMINISTRATION  OF  EDUCATION     229 

tioiial  Administration,"  vol.  11,  p.  423  (1903). 
"Appointive  or  Elective  Boards  of  Education,"  vol. 
16,  p.  136  (1908). 
Thurber,  C.  H.,  **  Principles  of  School  Organization, 
A  Comparative  Study  Based  on  Systems  of  the 
United  States,  England,  Germany,  and  France" 
(1900). 


M.  O.  (HARV'O) 

omr  KiiAi/rH  osd?t. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

what  is  the  matter  with  the 
presidency! 

For  a  long  time  there  has  been  a  vague  feeling 
on  the  part  of  the  American  people  that  there 
is  something  the  matter  with  the  Presidency. 
Entirely  apart  from  the  success  or  failure  of 
the  men  who  fill  the  position  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  excitement,  bitterness,  treach- 
ery, fraud  and  demagogism  of  a  Presidential 
campaign  is  proof  sufficient  that  there  is  about 
the  office  some  unfortunate  quality  which  pro- 
duces these  unfortunate  conditions.  The  truth 
is  that  the  office  is  too  big.  Not  perhaps  too 
large  for  the  right  man  to  administer  success- 
fully, but  too  attractive,  tempting,  seductive, 
for  the  preservation  of  the  honor  and  self- 
respect  of  candidates.  The  prize  is  too  great 
for  men  to  strive  for  it  fairly.  The  impor- 
tance of  winning  transcends  all  respect  for  the 
rules  of  the  game. 

The  office  is  too  big.  In  no  other  country 
of  the  world  is  there  any  such  office  to  be  dis- 
posed of  by  election.    In  the  democratic  mon- 

230 


MATTER  WITH  THE  PRESIDENCY     231 

archies,  of  whicli  England  is  the  type,  some 
nominal  power  and  a  great  deal  of  real  dignity 
rests  with  the  king.  The  actual  governing  au- 
thority belongs  to  a  group  of  men,  the  Cabinet, 
who  must  compete  for  a  place  in  the  popular 
mind  with  the  splendid  though  somewhat  un- 
substantial chief  of  state.  In  the  French  Re- 
public, the  President  lives  in  a  palace  and 
spends  his  time  and  a  large  income  impress- 
ing his  dignity  upon  the  people.  Although  the 
position  carries  with  it  little  real  power,  there 
has  never  been  any  difficulty  in  inducing  the 
most  successful  of  French  politicians  to  ac- 
cept it.  The  Council  of  Ministers  is  like  the 
English  Cabinet  in  its  relation  to  this  gorgeous 
semblance  of  power.  In  no  other  country 
where  popular  government  prevails  is  there  an 
officer  like  the  President  who  combines  the  dig- 
nity of  apparent  primacy  with  the  possession 
of  substantial  power.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
it  is  the  greatest  office  in  the  world.  Of  recent 
years  it  has  been  made  an  incomparable  agency 
for  the  direction  of  the  political  opinions  of 
the  people,  thus  giving  to  the  President  a 
political  potentiality  of  the  first  magnitude. 
It  is  true  that  not  every  incumbent  has  been 
notably  successful  in  employing  his  oppor- 
tunities in  this  direction — indeed  it  may  well 
be  said  that  this  was  the  conspicuous  weakness 


232  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

of  our  most  recent  Republican  President.  Yet 
the  power  is  there  for  the  master  brain  to  use 
for  the  weal  or  woe  of  the  nation.  If  Archi- 
medes lived  today  possessed  by  his  old  time  de- 
sire to  move  the  world,  he  need  only  wish  to  be 
the  President  of  the  United  States. 

Every  politician  who  comes  within  the  mag- 
netic area  of  this  gigantic  office  is  inevitably 
deflected  from  the  straight  course  by  his  de- 
sire to  secure  it.  Even  in  the  days  when  the 
Presidency  was  much  less,  and  the  United 
States  Senate  much  more,  than  now,  great  men 
destroyed  their  higher  reputations  straining 
for  this  Hesperidean  prize.  Calhoun,  finding 
he  had  no  chance  to  achieve  it,  in  bitterness 
of  spirit  turned  his  back  on  a  record  of  gen- 
erous nationalism  to  become  a  baneful  prophet 
of  secession.  As  to  Clay,  one  need  only  quote 
the  brilliant  dictum  of  Carl  Schurz.  ''Even 
his  oft  quoted  word  that  he  would  'rather  be 
right  than  be  President,'  was  spoken  at  a  time 
when  he  was  more  desirous  of  being  President 
than  sure  of  being  right."  The  colossal  Web- 
ster was  accused  of  stultifying  himself  in  the 
hope  of  conciliating  the  sentiment  necessary 
for  an  election  which  he  never  received,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  when  he  became  cer- 
tain that  the  prize  was  not  for  him  he  spent 
his    latter    years    in    uncharitable    petulance. 


MATTER  WITH  THE  PRESIDENCY     233 

Once  come  near  it  and  men  forget  botli  their 
friends  and  tlieir  principles.  According  to 
their  several  tempers  they  beg,  bargain, 
truckle,  threaten  or  abuse.  Some  would 
wreck  the  party  they  cannot  control,  while 
others  would  steal  from  their  party  the  nom- 
ination which  they  cannot  honestly  secure. 
There  may  be  honor  among  thieves,  but  among 
Presidential  candidates  rarely  much.  The  ex- 
ceptions emphasize  the  rule.  The  Presidential 
office  is  too  big  for  poor  human  nature,  and  it 
is  unfortunately  true  that  political  nature  is 
among  the  poorest  of  the  human  variety. 

At  the  same  time  that  the  Presidency  is  of 
such  overweening  attractiveness  to  those  who 
come  within  reach  of  it,  the  office  has  never 
supplied  any  rational  incentive  for  good  men 
to  go  into  politics.  It  may  be  safely  assumed 
that  the  man  of  parts  and  character  will  de- 
mand of  a  political,  as  well  as  of  any  other 
career  which  he  has  in  contemplation,  that 
there  shall  be  in  it  a  progressive  opportunity 
for  increased  usefulness  and  for  personal  ad- 
vancement. Our  political  system  has  never 
supplied  such  an  incentive.  Up  to  a  certain 
point  there  seems  to  be  a  sort  of  succession 
from  that  smallest  office  known  to  man — the 
place  of  justice  of  the  peace — up  to  the  second 
branch  of  the  state  legislature,  and  even  to  the 


234  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

lower  house  of  Congress.  Here  the  rule  of 
succession  actually  operates  to  the  disadvan- 
tage of  the  state  legislature  and  the  national 
House  of  Representatives  because  few  men  of 
ability  are  willing  to  undergo  the  long  appren- 
ticeship in  insignificant  positions.  To  the 
higher  places,  however,  the  governorships,  the 
United  States  Senatorships  and  the  Presi- 
dency there  is  no  orderly  succession.  There 
is  no  line  of  political  endeavor  which  seems 
to  give  any  advantage  in  candidacy  for  these 
positions  even  as  against  an  absolute  outsider. 
Hiram  Johnson  and  Woodrow  Wilson  never 
held  political  office  until  their  election  to  the 
Governorships  of  California  and  New  Jersey. 
It  is  true  that  the  majority  of  the  members  of 
the  United  States  Senate  have  had  previous 
political  experience  of  a  somewhat  extensive 
kind,  but  the  variety  of  offices  that  have  been 
held  is  so  great  that  it  is  impossible  to  imagine 
a  career  the  logical  conclusion  of  which  is  a 
seat  in  that  body,  unless,  indeed,  it  be  a  money- 
making  career. 

The  situation  is  even  more  marked  when  we 
come  to  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States. 
If  we  begin  with  1860  we  will  find  that  our 
Presidents  for  half  a  century  have  come  to 
the  office  for  almost  every  other  reason  than  as 
the    culmination    of    a    great    and    success- 


MATTER  WITH  THE  PRESIDENCY     235 

ful  political  career.     Lincoln  had  sei-ved  in  the 
Illinois  legislature  and  a  term  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  United  States,  but  so 
had  a  great  many  other  persons  whose  legisla- 
tive records  were  as  distinguished  as  his.    He 
was  nominated  because  his  utterances  in  an  un- 
successful campaign  had  made  him  available  as 
a  compromise  candidate  when  the  leading  men 
of  his  party  proved  to  be  deadlocked  for  the 
honor.     He   was    a    most   fortunate    accident. 
Grant  received  two  terms  on  the  basis  of  his 
military  record  and  Conklin's  reference  to  the 
''Sour  Apple  Tree"  nearly  got  him  the  nomina- 
tion for  a  third.     Hayes  was,  when  nominated, 
Governor  of  Ohio.    His  record  was  sound  but 
unimpressive.     He  was  nominated  because  of 
his    ''availability."     Garfield's    fine    military 
and  Congressional  record  may  be  taken  as  a 
mild  exception  to  the  rule.    Cleveland's  sole 
distinguishing  sei-vice  had  been  as   Governor 
of  New  York.     Harrison  was,  at  the  time  of  his 
nomination,  in  the  United  States  Senate.    He 
was  not,  however,  a  man  of  great  prominence. 
He  was  nominated  at  the  suggestion  of  Blaine 
because  he  was  untouched  by  scandal,  had  a 
good  military  record,  and  was  the  grandson  of 
a  most  popular  President.    McKinley  is  per- 
haps a  second  exception  to  the  rule  because  he 
had  a  congressional  record  of  some  length  and 


236  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

prominence  and  had  been  Governor  of  Ohio. 
He  was,  however,  much  less  well  known  than 
his  opponent  for  the  nomination,  Thomas  B. 
Reed,  whose  political  service  had  been  infinitely 
more  distinguished  than  McKinley's.  Roose- 
velt of  course  came  into  the  Presidency  by  acci- 
dent and  achieved  a  second  term  by  a  popular 
majority  greater  than  any  other  President  in 
our  history.  His  career  has  violated  all  rules 
and  theories  and  may  safely  be  set  aside  in 
considering  the  ordinary  road  to  the  Presiden- 
tial chair.  Taft  more  than  any  other  chief 
magistrate  since  John  Quincy  Adams  worked 
his  way  up  to  the  Presidency  through  distinctly 
logical  gradations.  He  was  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  word  promoted  to  the  Presidency. 

The  only  natural  approach  to  the  office  of 
President  which  can  be  discovered  from  the 
facts  just  outlined  is  that  by  way  of  the  Gov- 
ernor's chair.  Even  this  way  of  drawing  nigh 
unto  the  coveted  honor  has  been  used  but  four 
times  since  1860.  The  truth  is  that  the  first 
nomination  comes  to  a  man  more  frequently 
because  of  his  ** availability"  than  for  any 
other  reason.  To  be  ''available"  a  man  must 
have  a  clean  record,  with  a  touch  of  the  mili- 
tary in  it  if  possible.  He  must  be  agreeable 
— not  the  first  or  even  the  second  choice  of 
anybody — but     agreeable    to     everybody.    In 


MATTER  WITH  THE  PRESIDENCY     237 

other  words,  his  career  must  have  been  color- 
less. Finally,  he  must  live  in  New  York  or 
Ohio.  The  explanation  of  this  latter  point 
opens  the  way  to  the  discussion  of  one  of  the 
incidental  defects  of  the  Presidency — the  elec- 
toral system.  Since  all  the  States,  from  mo- 
tives of  pride  or  desire  for  influence  in  na- 
tional elections,  now  choose  their  electors  by 
general  ticket  it  is  very  much  more  significant 
to  carry  certain  of  the  large  States  by  even  the 
smallest  of  majorities  than  it  is  to  secure  the 
general  approval  of  the  people  of  the  whole 
countiy.  Not  only  does  this  lead  to  the  selec- 
tion of  candidates  from  a  limited  list  of  large 
and  doubtful  States  to  the  exclusion  of  the  tal- 
ent of  the  rest  of  the  country,  but  it  sometimes 
results  in  minority  elections.  This  is  properly 
to  be  expected  when,  as  in  1860  and  1912,  three 
or  more  candidates  are  in  the  field.  The  evil 
lies  in  the  fact  that  a  candidate  with  a  majority 
of  the  popular  vote  may  be  defeated  as  was 
Cleveland  in  1888.  There  is  no  temptation  to 
bring  out  the  minority  vote  in  States  which  are 
certain  one  way  or  the  other  and  there  is  little 
use  in  rolling  up  large  majorities  anywhere. 
We  have  never  had  a  President  from  west  of 
Illinois.  We  have  not  had  a  President  from 
south  of  Ohio  since  Buchanan  nor  one  from 
New  England  since  the  second  Adams.    In  the 


238  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

last  ten  Presidential  elections  we  have  chosen 
the  occupant  of  the  White  House  three  times 
from  New  York  and  five  times  from  Ohio,  while 
Woodrow  Wilson  comes  from  New  Jersey 
which  is  only  a  suhurb  of  New  York.  In  the 
two  instances  in  which  an  Ohio  President  has 
died  in  office  he  has  been  succeeded  by  a  Vice- 
President  elected  from  New  York.  It  is  fool- 
ish to  assume  that  all  the  Presidential  timber 
in  the  country  comes  from  the  political  forests 
of  those  States.  A  small  group  of  populous 
eastern  States  have  elected  all  our  Presidents 
for  fifty  years,  sometimes  in  defiance  of  the 
will  of  the  whole  people,  and  they  will  continue 
to  do  so  as  long  as  the  present  highly  irrational 
and  outworn  system  of  choice  prevails.  The 
original  purpose  of  the  electoral  college  was 
never  fulfilled.  It  serves  no  useful  purpose  of 
inducing  reflection  and  deliberate  judgment  of 
competent  persons  in  the  selection  of  the  Presi- 
dent. It  merely  gives  a  few  States  in  a  par- 
ticular section  more  power  than  they  ought  to 
have. 

One  modification  of  the  previous  paragraph 
perhaps  deserves  attention,  and  that  is  that 
nominations  for  a  second  term  are  secured  not 
on  the  basis  of  the  State  a  man  comes  from  or 
for  other  reasons  of  availability.  A  national 
convention  renominates  a  candidate  for  a  sec- 


MATTER  WITH  THE  PRESIDENCY     239 

ond  term  not  so  much  because  it  wants  to  as 
because  it  has  to.  It  may,  of  course,  inci- 
dentally want  for  reasons  of  principle  or  ex- 
pediency to  make  the  nomination,  but  it  is  a 
very  poor  President  who,  desiring  such  a  term, 
— and  most  of  them  do, — cannot  manage  the 
comparatively  simple  matter  of  a  nomination. 
It  has  been  peculiarly  easy  for  Republican 
Presidents  to  bring  to  pass  this  consummation 
because  of  the  fact  that  in  the  South  practically 
the  only  important  Republicans  are  the  hold- 
ers of  Federal  offices  within  the  gift  of  the 
President,  while  at  the  same  time  the  South  is 
represented  in  the  Republican  convention  with 
a  full  complement  of  delegates  on  a  popula- 
tion basis.  A  Democratic  President  has  no 
such  patent  machinery  for  the  corruption  of  a 
convention  ready  to  hand,  but  the  only  Demo- 
cratic President  for  fifty  years  was  renom- 
inated, after,  it  is  true,  a  more  desperate  strug- 
gle than  has  usually  characterized  conventions. 
A  President  plays  the  game  for  renomination 
with  loaded  dice.  Not  only  does  he  shape  his 
policies  to  catch  the  favor  of  the  people,  not 
only  does  he  have  his  ear  ever  to  the  ground  to 
get  advance  information  as  to  the  best  shape 
to  give  his  policies,  but  with  offices  and  influ- 
ence in  legislation  he  leads  or  drives  the  poli- 
ticians into  line.    Instead  of  studying  to  serve 


240     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

the  people  aud  trying  bis  best  to  fill  tbe  job 
they  have  hired  him  to  fill  for  them,  he  spends 
his  time  trying  to  make  as  far  as  possible  their 
approval  or  disapproval  of  his  official  conduct 
entirely  nugatory.  The  explanation  of  such 
dereliction  in  otherwise  honorable  men  is 
found  to  be  the  size  of  the  office  on  which  we 
have  already  commented  at  length.  Motive 
and  means  together  are  a  terrible  menace  to  the 
integrity  of  our  government.  Many  persons 
exclaim  with  alarm  at  the  prospect  of  any  man 
having  a  third  tenii  in  the  White  House  even 
when  a  period  of  years  has  elapsed  since  the 
candidate's  last  incumbency.  The  real  dan- 
ger lies  not  in  the  number  of  terms,  but  in  the 
use  of  patronage  and  other  improper  means 
to  perpetuate  a  President  in  power.  If  the 
present  system  is  otherwise  to  remain  in  force 
some  limitation  on  reeligibility  is  imperative. 
It  is  now  many  years  since  Woodrow  Wil- 
son, then  a  young  man,  wrote  his  famous  criti- 
cism of  the  relation  of  the  executive  to  the  legis- 
lative in  this  country.!  jjg  pointed  out  the  lack 
of  coordination  between  these  two  great  de- 
partments, and  strongly  urged  that  Congress, 
which  he  conceived  to  be  the  increasingly  vital 
force  in  our  system,  be  given  such  control  over 

1  Woodrow    Wilson,    "  Congressional    Government,"    Boston, 
1885, 


MATTER  WITH  THE  PRESIDENCY     241 

the  executive  as  the  English  Parliament  has 
over  its  executive  instruments,  while  at  the 
same  time  the  suggestion  of  policies  should 
be  left  to  the  latter.  In  other  words  he  pleaded 
for  the  responsible  ministry  form  of  govern- 
ment. His  book  attracted  at  that  time  some 
attention  among  the  cultured  few,  but  it  never 
made  any  practical  impression  on  the  great 
mass  of  the  people.  So  far  as  they  heard  of 
its  theories  at  all  it  was  only  to  smile  at  the 
vagaries  of  the  youthful  professor.  The  oc- 
casional essays  of  Congressional  committees  in 
the  same  direction  have  never  broken  the  calm 
popular  assumption  that  the  form  of  our  gov- 
ernment was  the  only  possible  and  the  best  im- 
aginable for  this  country.  Nevertheless  the 
lapse  of  time  has  served  only  to  establish,  on 
somewhat  different  grounds  it  is  true,  the  un- 
satisfactory character  of  the  relation  of  Presi- 
dent and  Congress.  The  President  today  is 
much  more  powerful  than  President  Wilson 
painted  him  in  1885.  A  good  example  is  Mr. 
Wilson's  own  domination  of  Congress.  He 
played  as  President  a  very  different  role 
than  he  put  on  paper  as  a  student.  The  criti- 
cism now  pertinent  is  that  the  President  does 
not  have  a  proper  influence  on  legislation. 
This  does  not  mean  that  the  President  is  not 
legislatively   powerful.     On   the   contrary  his 


242     GOVERNIIENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

power  is  enormous.  He  may  not  only  veto 
measures,  and  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  pass 
them  over  his  veto,  but,  what  is  frequently  more 
important,  he  can  threaten  to  veto.  A  member 
who  will  stand  out  against  the  President's  ex- 
pressed or  implied  threat  to  hamper  his  legis- 
lative career  with  the  veto  is  a.  br^ve  man. 
The  President  has  a  vast  patronage  which  is 
choice  bait  to  catch  votes  in  Congress  withal. 
He  has  the  ear  of  the  people  as  no  member  of 
Congress  or  combination  of  members  of  Con- 
gress has,  and  he  may,  if  he  has  talent  and  dis- 
position for  it,  determine  the  character  of 
legislation  by  his  popular  appeals.  The  diffi- 
culty does  not  lie  in  the  quantity  of  his  power, 
but  in  the  fact  that  it  can  be  exercised  only 
with  the  taint  of  political  jobbery  and,  even  so, 
only  on  certain  matters  of  great  popular  mo- 
ment. There  is  no  assurance  in  our  system 
that  the  needs  of  the  executive  department 
will  be  adequately  met,  that  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures will  be  properly  coordinated,  or 
that  any  definite  policy  emanating  from  any 
responsible  source  will  be  carried  out.  In  fact, 
every  one  knows  that  these  things  are  not  in 
practice  accomplis-hed.  The  declarations  of 
the  political  parties  are  largely  left  to  be  car- 
ried out  by  a  score  of  independent  committees 
who  have  little  or  no  responsibility  in  this  re- 


MATTER  WITH  THE  PRESIDENCY     243 

gard.  A  very  strong  President  may,  by  the 
exercise  of  the  various  means  of  influence  at 
his  command,  get  some  of  what  he  wants  if 
neither  House  of  Congress  has  a  majority  of 
an  opposing  party.  Otherwise  we  have  the 
situation  well  illustrated  by  the  Sixty-second 
Congress  wherein  no  constructive  work  of  any 
serious  kind  was  accomplished,  and  nowhere  to 
lay  the  blame  for  it. 

We  have  already  discussed  that  significant 
development  in  American  political  life — the  al- 
most uninterrupted  augmentation  of  the  power 
of  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. From  the  point  of  view  of  the  student 
of  institutional  evolution  it  has  been  simply  an 
illustration  of  the  natural  tendency  of  all  nu- 
merous bodies  of  men  to  seek  and  accept  leader- 
ship. Being  in  mass  incapable  of  genuine  ini- 
tiative our  four  hundred  representatives  are 
inevitably  reduced  to  acquiescence  in  the  meas- 
ures projected  by  their  leaders.  The  revolu- 
tion in  the  House  Rules  which  accompanied  the 
fall  of  Cannon  did  not  destroy  the  power  of  the 
speaker,  only  transferred  it  to  other  and  less 
responsible  hands.  As  a  matter  of  fact  such 
power  is  necessary  in  Congress  as  it  is  in  the 
British  Parliament.  The  real  need  is  a  strong 
and  responsible  leadership.  If  our  Cabinet, 
like  that  of  England,  was  part  of  the  House 


244  GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

of  Representatives  and  responsible  for  bring- 
ing in  a  comprehensive  programme  of  legisla- 
tion as  well  as  for  an  efficient  administration 
of  the  government,  we  would  have  all  the  ad- 
vantages of  our  present  system  in  securing  the 
dispatch  of  necessary  business  and  at  the  same 
time  the  possibility  of  holding  the  right  par- 
ties responsible  for  whatever  of  good  or  evil 
ensued.  The  function  now  performed  by  the 
Speaker  and  Rules  Committee  of  controlling 
the  time  of  the  House  would  be  performed  by 
the  Cabinet.  In  short,  the  system  of  responsi- 
ble ministry  government  would  give  us  not 
only  relief  from  the  overwhelming  power  of 
the  President  but  at  the  same  time  afford  a 
responsible  direction  to  the  legislature. 

An  almost  equal  degree  of  importance  at- 
taches to  the  added  control  which  the  legisla- 
ture would  have  over  the  executive.  The  fact 
that  its  existence  depends  on  fulfilling  the  ex- 
pectations of  the  House  in  matters  of  adminis- 
tration would  make  the  work  of  every  execu- 
tive department  more  careful.  There  would 
be  a  constant  and  effective  supervision  of  ad- 
ministration by  the  legislature  instead  of  oc- 
casional and  resultless  inquests  by  committees 
which  can  do  nothing  more  than  recommend 
futilities.  The  farce  of  Congressional  investi- 
gations would  be  at  an  end.    Of  course  under 


MATTER  WITH  THE  PRESIDENCY     245 

such  a  system  the  President  would  become  a 
figure-head  and  the  real  executive  would  be  the 
Cabinet.  The  more  numerous  honors  of  Cabi- 
net rank  to  be  earned  most  readily  by  credit- 
able service  in  Congress  would  attract  the  best 
brain  and  heart  of  the  country  to  that  service. 
The  power  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
would  be  greatly  increased,  a  thing  that  its 
previous  record  would  hardly  seem  to  warrant. 
If,  however,  we  remember  that  its  powerless- 
ness  has  been  a  moving  cause  in  keeping  good 
men  out  of  it,  we  can  easily  reconcile  ourselves 
to  the  change.  The  Senate  would  naturally 
shrivel  to  the  proportions  of  second  chambers 
in  other  countries  where  the  system  of  minis- 
terial responsibility  prevails.  There  has  been 
little  in  the  recent  history  of  that  body  to  make 
the  retention  of  its  present  potency  desirable, 
and  it  is  beyond  doubt  that  there  would  be  room 
for  the  mental  activities  of  its  present  per- 
sonnel even  in  a  sphere  much  more  restricted 
than  that  of  the  Senate  in  France. 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  new 
plan  will  work  perfectly.  From  England  there 
has  recently  come  a  good  deal  of  criticism  of 
this  system  as  it  operates  there,^  and  it  is  com- 
mon knowledge  that  in  France  the  plan  has 
hardly    suited    the    Gallic    temperament.    No 

iBelloc  and  Chesterton,  "The  Party  System,"  London,  1911. 


246     GOVERNMENT  FOR  THE  PEOPLE 

system  of  government  is  ideal  and  there  is  none 
that  will  always  and  inevitably  work  out  the 
best  results.  A  responsible  ministry,  however, 
modeled  somewhat  on  that  of  England,  would 
correct  several  of  the  more  obvious  defects  in 
the  organization  of  our  government,  and  in- 
volve only  the  difficulties  incidental  to  all  demo- 
cratic constitutions. 

It  would  be  idle  to  suppose  that  it  is  prac- 
ticable at  once  to  make  the  suggested  change 
in  its  completeness.  Prejudice,  especially  the 
prejudice  against  everything  English  which 
will  not  even  permit  us  to  call  a  department 
officer  an  *' Under  Secretary,"  will  operate  to 
prevent  it.  Inertia  and  self-satisfaction  will 
be  among  its  enemies.  Then  there  is,  too,  the 
real  danger  of  upsetting  existing  machinery  of 
a  sudden.  There  is  nevertheless  one  reform 
often  recommended  and  of  plain  utility.  It  is 
a  measure  which  may  be  taken  safely  even  if 
there  is  no  intention  to  go  further.  That  is 
the  giving  of  members  of  the  Cabinet,  seats  and 
the  right,  at  least  to  speak  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  Senate.  Thus  far  we  can 
proceed  without  fear  of  revolution.  Let  us 
march  on. 


MATTER  WITH  THE  PRESIDENCY     2^7 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Beard,   "American   Government   and  Polities,"  pp. 

166-186  and  205-214. 
Belloc  and  Chesterton,  "The  Party  System"   (a 

hostile  criticism  of  the  English  system). 
Bryce,  James,  "American  Commonwealth,"  vol.  1, 

chapters  V-VIII,  XX,  XXI. 
Dougherty,  J.  Hampton,  "The  Electoral  System." 
FoLLETT,  M.  P., ' '  The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives." 
Fuller,  H.  H.,  "Speakers  of  the  House." 
Johnston,  Alexander,  "American  Politics." 
Lodge,  H.  C,  "Daniel  Webster" — American  States- 
men Series,  2  vols. 
Lowell,  A.  Lawrence,  "Government  of  England," 
vol.  1,  chapters  II,  III,  XVII,  XVIII.     "Govern- 
ment and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe,"  vol.  1, 
pp.  1-145.     "Essays  on  Government"   (gives  con- 
trary view  to  Wilson,  cited  below). 
McCoNACniE,  L.  C,  "Congressional  Committees." 
Reinsch,  p.  S.,  "American  Legislatures  and  Legisla- 
tive Methods." 
ScHURZ,  Carl,  "Henry  Clay" — American  Statesmen 

Series,  2  vols. 
Stanwood,  "A  History  of  the  Presidency." 
VoN  HoLST,  Hermann  Eduard,  "John  C.  Calhoun" 

— American  Statesmen  Series. 
Wilson,  Woodrow,  "Congressional  GovernmeQt." 


APPENDIX  A 

THE  RECALL  IN  SCHAFFHAUSEN  AND 
LOS  ANGELES 

Constitution  of  the  Canton  of  Schaffhausen 

division  iv 

The  people  may  at  any  time  recall  the  Great- 
Council.  As  soon  as  such  a  request  is  handed  to  the 
Government-Council  by  at  least  1000  active  citizens 
it  is  obliged  to  order  immediately  a  popular  vote  on 
the  question.*  *  *  If  the  majority  of  voters  decide  in 
favor  of  the  recall,  a  new  election  takes  place.  The 
new  Great-Council  puts  an  end  to  the  duration  in 
office  of  the  recalled  Council. 

Los  Angeles  City  Charter,  Amendment,  1903 

THE  RECALL 

Sec.  198c.  The  holder  of  any  elective  office  may  be 
removed  at  any  time  by  the  electors  qualified  to  vote 
for  a  successor  of  such  an  incumbent.  The  procedure 
to  effect  the  removal  of  an  incumbent  of  an  elective 
office  shall  be  as  follows:  A  petition  signed  by  elec- 
tors entitled  to  vote  for  a  successor  to  the  incumbent 
sought  to  be  removed,  equal  in  number  to  at  least  25 
per  centum  of  the  entire  vote  for  all  candidates  for 

249 


250  APPENDIX 

the  office,  the  incumbent  of  which  is  sought  to  be 
removed,  cast  at  the  last  preceding  general  municipal 
election,  demanding  an  election  of  a  successor  of  the 
person  sought  to  be  removed,  shall  be  filed  with  the 
City  Clerk;  provided  that  the  petition  sent  to  the 
Council  shall  contain  a  general  statement  of  the 
grounds  for  which  the  removal  is  sought.  The  signa- 
tures to  the  petition  need  not  all  be  appended  to  one 
paper,  but  each  signer  shall  add  to  his  signature  his 
place  of  residence,  giving  his  street  and  number. 
One  of  the  signers  of  each  such  paper  shall  make  oath 
before  an  officer  competent  to  administer  oaths,  that 
the  statements  therein  made  are  true,  and  that  each 
signature  to  the  paper  appended  is  the  genuine  signa- 
ture of  the  person  whose  name  purports  to  be  there- 
unto subscribed.  Within  ten  days  of  the  date  of 
filing  such  petition  the  City  Clerk  shall  examine  and 
from  the  great  register  ascertain  whether  or  not 
said  petition  is  signed  by  the  requisite  number  of 
qualified  electors,  and  if  necessary,  the  Council  shall 
allow  him  extra  help  for  that  purpose,  and  he  shall 
attach  to  said  petition  his  certificate  showing  the  result 
of  said  examination.  If,  by  the  Clerk's  certificate,  the 
petition  is  shown  to  be  insufficient,  it  may  be  amended 
within  ten  days  from  the  date  of  said  certificate.  The 
Clerk  shall  within  ten  days  after  such  amendment, 
make  like  examination  of  the  amended  petition,  and 
if  his  certificate  shall  show  the  same  to  be  insufficient, 
it  shall  be  returned  to  the  person  filing  the  same  with- 
out prejudice,  however,  to  the  filing  of  a  new  petition 
to  the  same  effect.    If  the  petition  shall  be  found  to 


APPENDIX  251 

be  sufficient  the  Clerk  shall  submit  the  same  to  the 
Council  without  delay.  If  the  petition  shall  be  found 
to  be  sufficient  the  City  Council  shall  order,  and  fix  a 
date  for  holding  the  said  election,  not  less  than  thirty 
days  nor  more  than  forty  days  from  the  date  of  the 
Clerk's  certificate  to  the  Council  that  a  sufficient 
petition  is  filed. 

The  City  Council  shall  make  or  cause  to  be  made 
publication  of  notice,  and  all  arrangements  for  hold- 
ing of  such  election ;  and  the  same  shall  be  conducted, 
returned,  and  the  result  thereof  declared,  in  all  re- 
spects, as  are  other  city  elections.     The  successor  of 
any  officer  so  removed  shall  hold  office  during  the  un- 
expired term  of  his  predecessor.     Any  person  sought 
to  be  removed  may  be  a  candidate  to  succeed  himself, 
and,  unless  he  requests  otherwise,  in  writing,  the  Clerk 
shall  place  his  name  on  the  official  ballot  without  nom- 
ination.    In  any  such  removal  election,  the  candidate 
receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes  shall  be  de- 
clared elected.     At  such  election  if  some  other  person 
than  the  incumbent  receives  the  highest  number  of 
votes,  the  incumbent  shall  thereupon  be  deemed  re- 
moved from  the  office  upon  qualification  of  his  suc- 
cessor.    In  case  the  party  who  receives  the  highest 
number  of  votes  should  fail  to  qualify  within  ten 
days  after  receiving  notification  of  election,  the  office 
shall  be  deemed  vacant.     If  the  incumbent  receives 
the  highest  number  of  votes  he  shall  continue  in  office. 
(These  provisions  have  since  been  altered  by  amend- 
ments adopted  in  1911.) 


APPENDIX  B 

LATE  FORMS  OF  THE  INITIATIVE  AND 
REFERENDUM 

Ohio  Constitution,  Article  II 

See.  1.  The  legislative  power  of  the  State  shall  be 
vested  in  a  general  assembly  consisting  of  a  senate 
and  house  of  representatives  but  the  people  reserve  to 
themselves  the  power  to  propose  to  the  general  assembly 
laws  and  amendments  to  the  constitution,  and  to  adopt 
or  reject  the  same  at  the  polls  on  a  referendum  vote  as 
hereinafter  provided.  They  also  reserve  the  pov/er  to 
adopt  or  reject  any  law,  section  of  any  law  or  any 
item  in  any  law  appropriating  money  passed  by  the 
general  assembly,  except  as  hereinafter  provided ;  and  ■ 
independent  of  the  general  assembly  to  propose 
amendments  to  the  constitution  and  to  adopt  or  reject 
the  same  at  the  polls.  The  limitations  expressed  in 
the  constitution,  on  the  power  of  the  general  assembly 
to  enact  laws,  shall  be  deemed  limitations  on  the 
power  of  the  people  to  enact  laws. 

See,  la.  The  first  aforestated  power  reserved  by  the 
people  is  designated  the  initiative,  and  the  signatures 
of  ten  per  centum  of  the  electors  shall  be  required 
upon  a  petition  to  propose  an  amendment  to  the  con- 
stitution.   When  a  petition  signed  by  the  aforesaid 

252 


APPENDIX  253 

required  number  of  electors  shall  have  been  filed  with 
the  secretary  of  state,  and  verified  as  herein  provided, 
proposing  an  amendment  to  the  constitution,  the  full 
text  of  which  shall  have  been  set  forth  in  such  petition, 
the  secretary  of  state  shall  submit  for  the  approval  or 
rejection  of  the  electors,  the  proposed  amendment,  in 
the  manner  hereinafter  provided,  at  the  next  succeed- 
ing regular  or  general  election  in  any  year  occurring 
subsequent  to  ninety  days  after  the  filing  of  such 
petition.  The  initiative  petitions,  above  described, 
shall  have  printed  across  the  top  thereof:  "Amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  proposed  by  Initiative  Peti- 
tion to  be  Submitted  Directly  to  the  Electors." 

Sec.  lb.  When  at  any  time,  not  less  than  ten  days 
prior  to  the  commencement  of  any  session  of  the  gen- 
eral assembly,  there  shall  have  been  filed  with  the 
secretary  of  state  a  petition  signed  by  three  per  centum 
of  the  electors  and  verified  as  herein  provided,  pro- 
posing a  law,  the  full  text  of  which  shall  have  been 
set  forth  in  such  petition,  the  secretary  of  state  shall 
transmit  the  same  to  the  general  assembly  as  soon  as 
it  convenes.  If  said  proposed  law  shall  be  passed 
by  the  general  assembly,  either  as  petitioned  for  or 
in  an  amended  form,  it  shall  be  subject  to  the  refer- 
endum. If  it  shall  not  be  passed,  or  if  it  shall  be 
passed  in  an  amended  form,  or  if  no  action  shall  be 
taken  thereon  within  four  months  from  the  time  it  is 
received  by  the  general  assembly,  it  shall  be  submitted 
by  the  secretary  of  state  to  the  electors  for  their  ap- 
proval or  rejection  at  the  next  regular  or  general  elec- 
tion, if  such  submission  shall  be  demanded  by  supple- 


254  APPENDIX 

mentary  petition  verified  as  herein  provided  and 
signed  by  not  less  than  three  per  centum  of  the  elec- 
tors in  addition  to  those  signing  the  original  petition, 
which  supplementary  petition  must  be  signed  and 
filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  within  ninety  days 
after  the  proposed  law  shall  have  been  rejected  by  the 
general  assembly  or  after  the  expiration  of  such  term 
of  four  months,  if  no  action  has  been  taken  thereon, 
or  after  the  law  as  passed  by  the  general  assembly 
shall  have  been  filed  by  the  governor  in  the  ofQce  of 
the  secretary  of  state.  The  proposed  law  shall  be 
submitted  in  the  form  demanded  by  such  supple- 
mentary petition,  which  form  shall  be  either  as  first 
petitioned  for  or  with  any  amendment  or  amendments 
which  may  have  been  incorporated  therein  by  either 
branch  or  by  both  branches  of  the  general  assembly. 
If  a  proposed  law  so  submitted  is  approved  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  electors  voting  thereon,  it  shall  be  the 
law  and  shall  go  into  effect  as  herein  provided  in  lieu 
of  any  amended  form  of  said  law  which  may  have 
been  passed  by  the  general  assembly,  and  such  amended 
law  passed  by  the  general  assembly  shall  not  go  into 
effect  until  and  unless  the  law  proposed  by  supple- 
mentary petition  shall  have  been  rejected  by  the 
electors.  All  such  initiative  petitions,  last  above  de- 
scribed, shall  have  printed  across  the  top  thereof,  in 
case  of  proposed  laws:  "Law  Proposed  by  Initiative 
Petition  First  to  be  Submitted  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly." Ballots  shall  be  so  printed  as  to  permit  an 
affirmative  or  negative  vote  upon  each  measure  sub- 
mitted to  the  electors.    Any  proposed  law  or  amend- 


APPENDIX  255 

ment  to  the  constitution  submitted  to  the  electors  as 
provided  in  section  la  and  section  lb,  if  approved  by 
a  majoritj'^  of  the  electors  voting  thereon,  shall  take 
effect  thirty  days  after  the  election  at  which  it  was 
approved  and  shall  be  published  by  the  secretary  of 
state.  If  conflicting  proposed  laws  or  conflicting  pro- 
posed amendments  to  the  constitution  shall  be  ap- 
proved at  the  same  election  by  a  majority  of  the  total 
number  of  votes  cast  for  and  against  the  same,  the  one 
receiving  the  highest  number  of  affirmative  votes 
shall  be  the  law,  or  in  the  case  of  amendments  to  the 
constitution  shall  be  the  amendment  to  the  constitu- 
tion. No  law  proposed  by  initiative  petition  and 
approved  by  the  electors  shall  be  subject  to  the  veto  of 
the  governor. 

See.  le.  The  second  aforestated  power  reserved  by 
the  people  is  designated  the  referendum,  and  the  sig- 
nature of  six  per  centum  of  the  electors  shall  be 
required  upon  a  petition  to  order  the  submission  to  the 
electors  of  the  State  for  their  approval  or  rejection, 
of  any  law,  section  of  any  law  or  any  item  in  any  law 
appropriating  money  passed  by  the  general  assembly. 
No  law  passed  by  the  general  assembly  shall  go  into 
effect  until  ninety  days  after  it  shall  have  been  filed 
by  the  governor  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state, 
except  as  herein  provided.  When  a  petition  signed 
by  six  per  centum  of  the  electors  of  the  State  and 
verified  as  herein  provided,  shall  have  been  filed  with 
the  secretary  of  state  within  ninety  days  after  any  law 
shall  have  been  filed  by  the  governor  in  the  office  of 
the  secretary  of  state,  ordering  that  such  law  or  any 


256  APPENDIX 

item  in  such  law  appropriating  money  be  submitted  to 
the  electors  of  the  State  for  their  approval  or  rejection, 
the  secretary  of  state  shall  submit  to  the  electors  of  the 
State  for  their  approval  or  rejection  such  law,  section 
or  item,  in  the  manner  herein  provided,  at  the  next 
succeeding  regular  or  general  election  in  any  year 
occurring  subsequent  to  sixty  days  after  the  filing  of 
such  petition,  and  no  such  law,  section  or  item  shall 
go  into  effect  until  and  unless  approved  by  a  majority 
of  those  voting  upon  the  same.  If,  however,  a  refer- 
endum petition  is  filed  against  any  such  section  or 
item,  the  remainder  of  the  law  shall  not  thereby  be 
prevented  or  delayed  from  going  into  effect. 

Sec,  Id.  Laws  providing  for  tax  levies,  appropria- 
tions for  the  current  expenses  of  the  state  govern- 
ment and  state  institutions,  and  emergency  laws 
necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the  pub- 
lic peace,  health  or  safety,  shall  go  into  immediate 
effect.  Such  emergency  laws  upon  a  yea  and  nay  vote 
must  receive  the  vote  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  members 
elected  to  each  branch  of  the  general  assembly,  and 
the  reasons  for  such  necessity  shall  be  set  forth  in  one 
section  of  the  law,  which  section  shall  be  passed  only 
upon  a  yea  and  nay  vote,  upon  a  separate  roll  call 
thereon.  The  laws  mentioned  in  this  section  shall  not 
be  subject  to  the  referendum. 

Sec,  le.  The  powers  defined  herein  as  the  "initia- 
tive" and  "referendum"  shall  not  be  used  to  pass  a 
law  authorizing  any  classification  of  property  for  the 
purpose  of  levying  different  rates  of  taxation  thereon 
pr  of  authorizing  the  levy  of  any  single  tax  on  land  or 


APPENDIX  257 

land  values  or  land  sites  at  a  higher  rate  or  by  a  dif- 
ferent rule  than  is  or  may  be  applied  to  improvements 
thereon  or  to  personal  property. 

Sec.  If.  The  initiative  and  referendum  powers  are 
hereby  reserved  to  the  people  of  each  municipality  on 
all  questions  which  such  municipalities  may  now  or 
hereafter  be  authorized  by  law  to  control  by  legisla- 
tive action ;  such  powers  shall  be  exercised  in  the  man- 
ner now  or  hereafter  provided  by  law. 

Sec.  Ig.  Any  initiative,  supplementary  or  referen- 
dum petition  may  be  presented  in  separate  parts,  but 
each  part  shall  contain  a  full  and  correct  copy  of  the 
title,  and  text  of  the  law,  section  or  item  thereof 
sought  to  be  referred,  or  the  proposed  law  or  proposed 
amendment  to  the  constitution.  Each  signer  of  any 
initiative,  supplementary  or  referendum  petition  must 
be  an  elector  of  the  State  and  shall  place  on  such 
petition  after  his  name  the  date  of  signing  and  his 
place  of  residence.  A  signer  residing  outside  of  a 
municipality  shall  state  the  township  and  county  in 
which  he  resides.  A  resident  of  a  municipality  shall 
state  in  addition  to  the  name  of  such  municipality,  the 
street  and  number,  if  any,  of  his  residence  and  the 
ward  and  precinct  in  which  the  same  is  located.  The 
names  of  all  signers  to  such  petitions  shall  be  written 
in  ink  each  signer  for  himself.  To  each  part  of  such 
petition  shall  be  attached  the  affidavit  of  the  person 
soliciting  the  signatures  to  the  same,  which  affidavit 
shall  contain  a  statement  of  the  number  of  signers  of 
such  part' of  such  petition  and  shall  state  that  each  of 
the  signatures  attached  to  such  part  was  made  in  the 


258  APPENDIX 

presence  of  the  affiant,  that  to  the  best  of  his  knowl- 
edge and  belief  each  signature  on  such  part  is  the 
genuine  signature  of  the  person  whose  name  it  pur- 
ports to  be,  that  he  believes  the  persons  who  have 
signed  it  to  be  electors,  that  they  so  signed  said  petition 
with  knowledge  of  the  contents  thereof,  that  each 
signer  signed  the  same  on  the  date  stated  opposite  his 
name ;  and  no  other  affidavit  thereto  shall  be  required. 
The  petition  and  signatures  upon  such  petitions,  so 
verified,  shall  be  presumed  to  be  in  all  respects  suffi- 
cient, unless  not  later  than  forty  days  before  the  elec- 
tion, it  shall  be  otherwise  proved  and  in  such  event 
ten  additional  days  shall  be  allowed  for  the  filing  of 
additional  signatures  to  such  petition.  No  law  or 
amendment  to  the  constitution  submitted  to  the  elec- 
tors by  initiative  and  supplementary  petition  and  re- 
ceiving an  affirmative  majority  of  the  votes  cast 
thereon,  shall  be  held  unconstitutional  or  void  on 
account  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  petitions  by  which 
such  submission  of  the  same  was  procured;  nor  shall 
the  rejection  of  any  law  submitted  by  referendum 
petition  be  held  invalid  for  such  insufficiency.  Upon 
all  initiative,  supplementary  and  referendum  pe- 
titions provided  for  in  any  of  the  sections  of  this 
article,  it  shall  be  necessary  to  file  from  each  of  one- 
half  of  the  counties  of  the  State,  petitions  bearing  the 
signatures  of  not  less  than  one-half  of  the  designated 
percentage  of  the  electors  of  such  county.  A  true 
copy  of  all  laws  or  proposed  laws  or  proposed  amend- 
ments to  the  constitution,  together  with  an  argument 
or  explanation,  or  both  for,  and  also  an  argument  or 


APPENDIX  259 

explanation,  or  both,  against  the  same,  shall  be  pre- 
pared. The  person  or  persons  who  prepare  the  argu- 
ment or  explanation,  or  both,  against  any  law,  sec- 
tion or  item,  submitted  to  the  electors  by  referen- 
dum petition,  may  be  named  in  such  petition  and  the 
persons  who  prepare  the  argument  or  explanation,  or 
both,  for  any  proposed  law  or  proposed  amendment  to 
the  constitution  may  be  named  in  the  petition  pro- 
posing the  same.  The  person  or  persons,  who  prepare 
the  argument  or  explanation,  or  both,  for  the  law, 
section  or  item,  submitted  to  the  electors  by  referen- 
dum petition,  or  against  any  proposed  law  submitted 
by  supplementary  petition,  shall  be  named  by  the  gen- 
eral assembly,  if  in  session,  and  if  not  in  session  then 
by  the  governor.  The  secretary  of  state  shall  cause 
to  be  printed  the  law,  or  proposed  law,  or  proposed 
amendment  to  the  constitution,  together  with  the  argu- 
ments and  explanations,  not  exceeding  a  total  of  three 
hundred  words  for  each,  and  also  the  arguments  and 
explanations,  not  exceeding  a  total  of  three  hundred 
words  against  each,  and  shall  mail,  or  otherAvise  dis- 
tribute, a  copy  of  such  law,  or  proposed  law,  or  pro- 
posed amendment  to  the  constitution,  together  with 
such  arguments  and  explanations,  for  and  against 
the  same,  to  each  of  the  electors  of  the  State,  as  far  as 
may  be  reasonably  possible.  Unless  otherwise  pro- 
vided for  by  law,  the  secretary  of  state  shall  cause  to 
be  placed  upon  the  ballots,  the  title  of  any  such  law, 
or  proposed  law  or  proposed  amendment  to  the  con- 
stitution, to  be  submitted.  He  shall  also  cause  the 
ballots  so  to  be  printed  as  to  permit  an  affirmative  or 


260  APPENDIX 

negative  vote  upon  each  law,  section  of  law,  or  item  in 
a  law  appropriating  money,  or  proposed  law  or  pro- 
posed amendment  to  the  constitution.  The  style  of 
all  laws  submitted  by  initiative  and  supplementary 
petition  shall  be:  "Be  it  Enacted  by  the  People  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,"  and  of  all  constitutional  amend- 
ments :  "Be  It  Resolved  by  the  People  of  the  State  of 
Ohio."  The  basis  upon  which  the  required  number 
of  petitioners  in  any  case  shall  be  determined  shall  be 
the  total  number  of  votes  cast  for  the  office  of  governor 
at  the  last  preceding  election  therefor.  The  forego- 
ing provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  self-executing, 
except  as  herein  otherwise  provided.  Laws  may  be 
passed  to  facilitate  their  operation,  but  in  no  way  lim- 
iting or  restricting  either  such  provision  or  the  powers 
herein  reserved. 


Proposed  Amendment  to  "Wisconsin  Constitution 

(No.  36,  A.) 

Joint  Resolution  No.  74 

(Defeated  by  the  People,  November  3,  1914.) 

To  amend  section  1  of  article  IV  of  the  constitution, 
to  give  to  the  people  the  power  to  propose  laws  and 
to  enact  or  reject  the  same  at  the  polls,  and  to  approve 
or  reject  at  the  polls  any  act  of  the  legislature ;  and  to 
create  section  3,  of  article  XII  of  the  constitution,  pro- 
viding for  the  submission  of  amendments  to  the  con- 
stitution upon  the  petition  of  the  people. 


APPENDIX  261 

Resolved  by  the  Assembly,  the  Senate  concurring, 
That  section  1  of  Article  IV  of  the  constitution  be 
amended  to  read : 

Section  1,  I.  The  legislative  power  shall  be  vested 
in  a  senate  and  assembly,  but  the  people  reserve  to 
themselves  power,  as  herein  provided,  to  propose  laws 
and  to  enact  or  reject  the  same  at  the  polls,  inde- 
pendent of  the  legislature,  and  to  approve  or  reject  at 
the  polls  any  law  or  any  part  of  any  law  enacted  by 
the  legislature.  The  limitations  expressed  in  the  con- 
stitution on  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  enact  laws, 
shall  be  deemed  limitations  on  the  power  of  the  people 
to  enact  laws. 

2.  a.  Any  senator  or  member  of  the  assembly  may 
introduce,  by  presenting  to  the  chief  clerk  in  the  house 
of  which  he  is  a  member,  in  open  session,  at  any  time 
during  the  session  of  the  legislature,  any  bill  or  any 
amendment  to  any  such  bill;  provided  that  the  time 
for  so  introducing  a  bill  may  be  limited  by  rule  to 
not  less  than  thirty  legislative  days. 

b.  The  chief  clerk  shall  make  a  record  of  such  bill 
and  every  amendment  offered  thereto  and  have  the 
same  printed. 

3.  A  proposed  law  shall  be  recited  in  full  in  the 
petition,  and  shall  consist  of  a  bill  which  has  been 
introduced  in  the  legislature  during  the  first  thirty 
legislative  daj^s  of  the  session,  as  so  introduced ;  or,  at 
the  option  of  the  petitioners,  there  may  be  incorpo- 
rated in  said  bill  any  amendment  or  amendments  in- 
troduced in  the  legislature.  Such  bill  and  amend- 
ments shall  be  referred  to  by  number  in  the  petition. 


262  APPENDIX 

Upon  petition  filed  not  later  than  four  months  before 
the  next  general  election,  such  proposed  law  shall  be 
submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  and  shall  become  a 
law  if  it  is  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  electors 
voting  thereon,  and  shall  take  effect  and  be  in  force 
from  and  after  thirty  days  after  the  election  at  which 
it  is  approved. 

4.  a.  No  law  enacted  by  the  legislature,  except  an 
emergency  law,  shall  take  effect  before  ninety  days 
after  its  passage  and  publication.  If  within  said 
ninety  days,  there  shall  have  been  filed  a  petition  to 
submit  to  a  vote  of  the  people  such  law  or  any  part 
thereof,  such  law  or  such  part  thereof,  shall  not  take 
effect  until  thirty  days  after  its  approval  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  qualified  electors  voting  thereon. 

b.  An  emergency  law  shall  remain  in  force,  not- 
withstanding such  petition,  but  shall  stand  repealed 
thirty  days  after  being  rejected  by  a  majority  of  the 
qualified  electors  voting  thereon. 

c.  An  emergency  law  shall  be  any  law  declared  by 
the  legislature  to  be  necessary  for  any  immediate  pur- 
pose by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  members  of  each 
house  voting  thereon,  entered  on  their  journals  by 
the  yeas  and  nays.  No  law  making  any  appropria- 
tion for  maintaining  the  State  government,  or  main- 
taining or  aiding  any  public  institution,  not  exceed- 
ing the  next  previous  appropriation  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, shall  be  subject  to  rejection  or  repeal  under  this 
section.  The  increase  in  any  such  appropriation  shall 
only  take  effect  as  in  case  of  other  laws,  and  such 
increase,  or  any  part  thereof  specified  in  the  petition, 


APPENDIX  263 

may  be  referred  to  a  vote  of  the  people  upon  petition. 

5.  If  measures  which  conflict  with  each  other  in  any 
of  their  essential  provisions  are  submitted  at  the  same 
election,  only  the  measure  receiving  the  highest  num- 
ber of  votes  shall  stand  as  the  enactment  of  the 
people. 

6.  The  petition  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of 
state  and  shall  be  sufficient  to  require  the  submission 
by  him  of  a  measure  to  the  people  when  signed  by 
eight  per  cent  of  the  qualified  electors  calculated  upon 
the  whole  number  of  votes  cast  for  governor  at  the  last 
preceding  election,  of  whom  not  more  than  one-half 
shall  be  residents  of  any  one  county. 

7.  The  vote  upon  measures  referred  to  the  people 
shall  be  taken  at  the  next  election  occurring  not  less 
than  four  months  after  the  filing  of  the  petition,  and 
held  generally  throughout  the  State  pursuant  to  law 
or  specially  called  by  the  governor. 

8.  The  legislature  shall  provide  for  furnishing  elec- 
tors the  text  of  all  measures  to  be  voted  upon  by  the 
people. 

9.  Except  that  measures  specifically  affecting  a 
subdivision  of  the  State  may  be  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple of  that  subdivision,  the  legislature  shall  submit 
measures  to  the  people  only  as  required  by  the  Con- 
stitution. 

******* 

Section  3.  1.  a.  Any  senator  or  member  of  the  as- 
sembly may  introduce,  by  presenting  to  the  chief 
clerk  in  the  house  in  which  he  is  a  member,  or  in 
open  session,  at  any  time  during  any  session  of  the 


264  APPENDIX 

legislature,  any  proposed  amendment  to  the  consti- 
tution or  any  amendment  to  any  such  proposed 
amendment  to  the  constitution;  provided,  that  the 
time  for  so  introducing  a  proposed  amendment  to  the 
constitution  may  be  limited  by  rule  to  not  less  than 
thirty  legislative  days. 

b.  The  chief  clerk  shall  make  a  record  of  such  pro- 
posed amendments  to  the  constitution  and  any  amend- 
ment thereto  and  have  same  printed. 

2.  Any  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution 
shall  be  recited  in  full  in  the  petition  and  shall  con- 
sist of  an  amendment  which  has  been  introduced  in 
the  legislature  during  the  first  thirty  legislative  days, 
as  so  introduced,  or,  at  the  option  of  the  petitioners, 
there  may  be  incorporated  therein,  any  amendment 
or  amendments  thereto  introduced  in  the  legislature. 
Such  amendment  to  the  constitution  and  amendments 
thereto  shall  be  referred  to  by  number  in  the  petition. 
Upon  petition  filed  not  later  than  four  months  before 
the  next  general  election,  such  proposed  amendment 
shall  be  submitted  to  the  people. 

3.  The  petition  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of 
state  and  shall  be  sufficient  to  require  the  submission 
by  him  of  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution 
to  the  people  when  signed  by  ten  per  cent  of  the 
qualified  electors  of  whom  not  more  than  one-half 
shall  be  residents  of  any  one  county. 

4.  Any  proposed  amendment  or  amendments  to  this 
constitution,  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  the  members 
elected  to  each  of  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature, 
shall  be  entered  on  their  journals  with  the  yeas  and 


APPENDIX  265 

nays  taken  thereon,  and  be  submitted  to  the  people  by 
the  secretary  of  state  upon  petition  filed  with  him 
signed  by  five  per  cent  of  the  qualified  electors  of 
whom  not  more  than  one-half  shall  be  residents  of 
any  one  county. 

5.  The  legislature  shall  provide  for  furnishing  the 
electors  the  text  of  all  amendments  to  the  constitution 
to  be  voted  upon  by  the  people. 

6.  If  the  people  shall  approve  and  ratify  such 
amendment  or  amendments  by  a  majority  of  the  elec- 
tors voting  thereon,  such  amendment  or  amendments 
shall  become  a  part  of  the  constitution  from  and 
after  the  election  at  which  approved;  provided,  that 
if  more  than  one  amendment  be  submitted  they  shall 
be  submitted  in  such  manner  that  the  people  may 
vote  for  or  against  such  amendments  separately. 

7.  If  proposed  amendments  to  the  constitution 
which  conflict  with  each  other  in  any  of  their  essen- 
tial provisions  are  submitted  at  the  same  election,  only 
the  proposed  amendment  receiving  the  highest  num- 
ber of  votes  shall  become  a  part  of  the  constitution. 


'^*KyW€.^'^.tm€^'. 


M.  O.  (HARV'O) 
acrY  HBAI/TH   DJBIPT. 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


CT  7 

^^S  6     T950 

oerri  4  ^«»% 


May    c™ 

"^^     5  197;: 


to 

URL 


JUN  2^ 

JUNH 


DEC  10  1984 


1975 

1975 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  811430 


3  1158  00930  7736 


